COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned counsel, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.4.

3. The present petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2025 issued by the Geologist, Chhotaudepur as well as the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Collector, Chhotaudepur.

4. In view of the fact that Special Civil Application No. 4989 of 2025 is treated as lead matter, facts mentioned in the said Special Civil Application are considered. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was granted a mining lease, by executing a lease deed, whereby the petitioner was allotted land admeasuring 2.00 hectors (Non Forest) situated at Survey No. Opposite of 40 and 41 of village Dhokaliya of Taluka Bodeli of District Chhotaudepur on the banks of River Orsang. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to mine Ordinary Sand. Such lease was renewed time to time. That, upon introduction of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 the petitioner had to tender the mining plan to the Respondent Authority for the land and mining lease in question. Such plan could be submitted only after the clearance of various authorities under various statutes. That, after considering the mining plan on the touchstone of the rules and various other regulations and statutes, the Respondent Authorities approved the mining plan of the petitioner vide communication dated 1st January 2023. Accordingly, the Mining Plan came to be approved till 31st March 2025, which is now further extended upto 31st March 2026. That, pursuant to the same, the petitioner continued mining activity at the site allotted to the petitioner, however, the respondent restrained the petitioner from its mining activity for the reasons best known to the respondent, without any notice and thus, the petitioner could not continue with the mining activity as the ATR of the petitioner was locked. That, on the other hand, the respondent issued a hearing notice dated 29th November 2024 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner for hearing on the date fixed i.e. 12th February 2024, which was fixed on the basis of the communication / instruction received by the respondent from Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited instructing to see that the excavation does not take place upto 2.5 kms upstream and 5.5 kms downstream from the bridge on the river Orsang. That, upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner approached the respondents vide letter dated 12th December 2024, which is till date not responded to nor any documents are provided by the respondents. That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the action of the respondent of illegally locking the ATR and of restraining the petitioner from mining, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1524 of 2025. That, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent by communication dated 30th January 2025 and 14th February 2025 the hearing on 20th February 2025. That, on the said date, the petitioner approached the respondents vide letter dated 20th February 2024, replying to the notice, reserving the right to file detailed reply upon supply of the documents sought for by the petitioner in such communication, which is till date not responded to nor any documents are provided by the respondents. That, after considering the contention of the parties this Court directed the respondents to open the online ATR vide its order 24th February 2025. That, despite direction as the respondents did not open the ATR, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petitioner being Misc. Civil Application No. 653 of 2025. Thereafter o