Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Vasava Balubhai Mangabhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22284 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22411 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pathik M Acharya
For the Respondents: Vaibhav Sharma

Pending applications for mining leases become ineligible upon the introduction of new statutory rules unless prior formal approval or a letter of intent exists. Administrative circulars cannot override statutory mandates, and the principle of equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate earlier illegalities.

Headnote:(A) Mining Law - Grant of quarry lease - Statutory Rules for mineral concessions - Pending applications - Ineligibility - Held, all applications pending prior to the commencement of new statutory rules are rendered ineligible unless a prior written approval or a letter of intent was formally issued - Administrative instructions or circulars cannot override or prevail over statutory provisions - (Paras 5.2.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Right to equality - Negative equality - The guarantee of equality is a positive concept and cannot be enforced to perpetuate illegalities or irregularities previously extended to others - (Paras 5.8, 5.8.1, 5.8.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed applications seeking the grant of mining leases, which remained pending. Upon the enforcement of a new regulatory framework for mineral concessions, the authorities rejected these applications on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria for saved cases. The petitioners challenged these rejections, contending that internal administrative circulars should allow their applications to be processed and that they were being denied benefits extended to others in similar circumstances.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that with the enactment of the new regulatory regime, any application pending at the time of commencement became legally ineligible unless it possessed a formal prior approval or an officially issued letter of intent. Administrative circulars were held to be insufficient to override the legislative mandate. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the claim for equal treatment could not be used to compel the adoption of previous irregular administrative actions.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the legal eligibility of pending lease applications following the introduction of new statutory rules and whether administrative circulars could create a 'saved' status category that contradicts the parent legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory mandates prevail over administrative interpretations. Pending applications are rendered redundant by new legislation unless the specific requirements for 'saved cases'—namely, prior written approval or a letter of intent—are satisfied. Negative equality cannot be invoked to replicate past illegalities or administrative errors.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for consolidation of petitions involving minor mineral quarry leases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. factual conflict regarding ineligibility of quarry lease applications post-2017 rules. (Para 6)
3. previous precedents establishing that pending applications for quarry leases become ineligible under the 2017 rules unless prior approvals or letters of intent existed. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. application of the principle that new statutory rules govern pending applications, rendering them ineligible if they do not meet the saved case criteria. (Para 11 , 12)

Approved for Reporting	Yes	No
	✔

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents – authorities.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the present petitions are taken up for final hearing.

3. The present petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners challenging impugned orders dated 24.01.2018 passed by Appellate Authority, Deputy Secretary Industries and Mine Department Gujarat and the orders dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Collector.

4. The short question arises in both the petitions is with regard to granting quarry lease.

5. As both the petitions are relating to the same issue, both the petitions have been tagged and the same are disposed of by this common judgment by treating Special Civil application No.22284 of 2022 as lead matter.

6. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners have filed an application for grant of quarry lease for the ordinary sand from Narmada River Belt before the Collector, which came to be rejected on the ground that (i) applied area was not included in blocks, (ii) no opinion was received from Talati Cum Mantri and (iii) no positive opinion was received from the concerned Gram Panchayat for allotting quarry lease in their area through block system. It is contended that the concerned Gram Panchayat has given no objection in providing quarry lease to the present petitioners and against the order of Collector, the petitioners approached before Deputy Secretary (Appeal) Industries and Mines Department by filing revision applications. It is contended that the Deputy Secretary (Appeal) rejected the revision applications on the ground that as per introduction of the Gujarat Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules 2017 since 24.05.2017 all the mining activity shall be undertaken only through the public auction and hence this petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents at length. Perused the material on record.

6. In the case of State Of Gujarat Vs. Giganbhai Nathubhai Karotara reported in 2023 (0) GUJHC 54127 : 2023 (0) JX(Guj) 823, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held and observed in para – 5 and 6 as under:-

“5. In the setting of the above facts, three main questions arise for consideration.

5.1 Firstly, whether in view of the statutory Rules called Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, having come into force on 24.05.2017, learned Single Judge could have directed the authorities to decide the applications for grant of quarry lease, uninfluenced by the said Rules. Whether statutory Rules could be ignored or deviated from in considering the applications.

5.1.1 Secondly, whether the State Government irrespective of operation of the Rules, could have by way of clarificatory circular carved out category of 'saved cases' to provide that in respect to the pending undecided applications dealt with by the Revisional Authorities, the applications could be processed for grant of quarry lease;

5.1.2 The third aspect required to be considered, as was contended, is whether on account of other persons stated to be similarly situated in another district, came to be granted quarry lease, the present petitioners could claim equal treatment with them to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADHemant M. Prachchhak, JVasava Balubhai Mangabhai – AppellantVersusState Of Gujarat – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22284 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22411 of 2022

Cases Referred (11)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Vasava Balubhai Mangabhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22284 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22411 of 2022