Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
Hemubha Malubha Jadeja - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application Nos. 10932 and 11010 of 2022
Decided On: 15-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders, both dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Collector, Kutch, Office of the Geology & Mining Department whereby, the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for bentonite mining for a requisite period, has been rejected in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2017"). The Collector has further directed that the grant of the quarry lease shall be governed as per the provisions of Rule 4 of Rules of 2017. The petitioners, are aggrieved by the said rejection and hence, the captioned writ petitions.
4. Thus the issue, involved in both the captioned writ petitions, is common; therefore, are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Treating Special Civil Application No. 10932 of 2022 as lead matter, facts are taken from the said writ petition and are stated herein below.
4.1. The process was initiated in the year 1997, seeking grant of quarry lease for the term of five years with respect to survey no. 420 admeasuring H 02.A 00- 00 sq. mts. situated at moje-Pundi taluka-Mandavi, district-Kutch (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"). The application came to be rejected by the Collector, Kutch, Office of the Geology & Mining Department vide order dated 15.01.2004 on the ground that there appears to be some overlapping. The petitioners being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Appeals), Office of the Commissioner, Geology & Mining Department, who vide order dated 23.08.2004, allowed it and remanded the case for fresh consideration. Once again, the Collector, Kutch has passed an order dated 14.07.2020. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.07.2020, revision application was filed. It appears that in connection with the revision application, remarks were called for, which were provided by the Geologist, Geology & Mining Department vide its communication dated 16.10.2020. According to the petitioners, the Geologist, has opined for issuance of the Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI") on the ground that similarly situated parties have been issued LOI.
4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that apropos the letter dated 07.12.2020 issued by the Section Officer, Industries & Mines Department, the Geologist, provided the basis, explaining the instances as to under what circumstances the applicants in the ten cases were considered for grant of quarry lease. The Geologist also opined that the case of the petitioners for grant of quarry lease, may be considered as 'saved case', considering the order of the State Government sanctioning the lease of the petitioners. The revisional authority, passed an order dated 12.04.2021, quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.07.2020 of the Collector and directed the Collector, Office of the Geology & Mining Department to reconsider the case of the petitioners as discussed in paragraph 7 wherein, two cases were considered and lease came to be granted. As a result whereof, the Office of the Geology & Mining Department has passed an order dated 11.03.2022 rejecting the application for grant of lease on the ground that the case of the petitioners, cannot be considered as 'saved case' and further directed that the land in question may be disposed of in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017. Hence, the captioned writ petition.
5. Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court to the chronology of events. While doing so, it is submitted that the application
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
Only existing quarry leases prior to the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under the specified provisions.
Only quarry leases granted or renewed before the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under Rule 12.
Point of Law : Orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in ....
Only existing quarry leases granted before the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, can be extended under Rule 12, affecting the petitioner's claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017, in directing the government to issue an....
Point of law: Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 provides relaxation to the authorities to consider applications on the priority basis, by recording any special reasons
Point of law : If there are any of disqualifications attached to any of these applicants, the same will have to be considered by the State Government. The factual inquiries as above cannot be appropr....
The Granite Rules, 1999 prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 in the event of repugnancy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
