1. All these petitions challenge a common notification dated 19.01.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Vadodara under section 33(1)(t) of the Gujarat Police Act and the consequential orders cancelling the Letters of Intent issued in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the said notification. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Rule returnable forthwith. The learned AGP Mr. Mayank Chavda waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1, whereas the learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.7.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 10471 of 2024. The petitioners were declared preferred bidders in the auction process conducted by the State Government for grant of quarry lease of ordinary sand at Village Moletha, Taluka Sinor, District Vadodara. Letters of Intent were issued in favour of the petitioners. The District Magistrate of Vadodara issued a notification dated 19.01.2024 under Section 33(1)(t) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (“Act, 1951” for short) prohibiting mining and transportation of sand in a specified stretch of the river near Vyaseshwar Mahadev Mandir to Shree Rang Setu Bridge and within 1 km downstream in Village Moletha. Consequently, the Collector, Vadodara passed orders dated 21.06.2024 cancelling the Letters of Intent issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands falling within the area covered by the notification, which led to the filing of the present petitions before this Court.

3. Ms. Kruti Shah, learned counsel with Mr. Jay N. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notification dated 19.01.2024 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 33(1)(t) of the Act, 1951 and the consequential order dated 21.06.2024 cancelling the Letters of Intent are unconstitutional, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that Section 33(1)(t) only empowers the authority to guard against danger arising from construction, repair and demolition of buildings and structures and therefore the said provision cannot be invoked to prohibit lawful mining activities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notification is arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power based merely on an inspection report dated 03.01.2024 and minutes of a meeting dated 12.01.2024 which were never supplied to the petitioners and which are not supported by any scientific or technical study. It is submitted that the notification ignores the District Survey Report prepared by the Geology and Mining Department and the environmental proceedings conducted by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and other authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the leases were granted pursuant to a valid tender process and are in conformity with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“Act, 1957” for short) and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“Rules, 2017” for short) and the District Survey Report also categorizes the area as a permissible mining zone. It is submitted that the blocks are situated outside the restricted limit prescribed by the National Green Tribunal and beyond the distance contemplated under Rule 18(6) of the Rules, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no environmental issues have ever been reported in the area despite mining activities being carried out for decades and that the approved mining plan permits excavation up to 0.6 metres whereas the replenishment study shows replenishment up to 1 metre which rules out environmental damage. It is submitted that the notification is arbitrary and discriminatory because mining blocks situated on the opposite bank of the Narmada River in Narmada district continue to operate even at distances of about 780 metres to 1.5 kilometres from Vyas Ashram while the blocks in Vadodara district have been cancelled