Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/148/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 148 of 2010
with
Civil
Application No.856 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 31085 of 2007
with
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 158 of 2010
with
Civil
Application No.1076 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 31084 of 2007
=========================================
KAPILESHWAR
CORPORATION & Ashish Associates
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & another
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PS PATEL for Appellant
Mr.
A.J. Desai, AGP, for the
respondents
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 08/02/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
appellants secured contracts with respondent No.2 on 16.6.1998 and
7.7.1998 for excavation of river sand from the river-bed of Tapi
river at village Kosadi, Taluka: Mandvi, District: Surat. Lease were
granted and before the expiry the appellants applied for renewal of
the same which was rejected by the Collector by reasoned orders
dated 29.6.2002 and 30.10.2002 confirmed by the Appellate Authority
and not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge in his judgment dated 25.8.2008 held that the period of
lease has expired and thereby the case has become infructous. This
was assailed by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants who submitted that as
the matter relates to renewal of lease, expiry of original lease
period cannot be a ground to declare that the case has become
infructuous.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.J. Desai,
learned A.G.P, for the State and perused the record.
It
is true that in case of renewal of lease particularly when it is
rejected and challenged before the Appellate Authority and the order
of such rejection is under challenge in a writ petition, expiry of
original lease period cannot be a ground to hold that the writ
petitions have become infructuous. However, in the present case, on
merit, we find that the lease were to come to an end on 16.6.2001 and
7.7.2001 respectively and 90 days prior to the same the appellants
were required to file applications for renewal of lease which were
not filed within time but filed beyond the period. This apart, the
appellants have failed to pay a sum of Rs.73451/- and Rs.58,961/-
respectively due towards interest, dead rent and surface rent of the
lease to renew the lease. Thereby on merit also, we find no
illegality in the orders of refusal of renewal of the lease dated
29.6.2002 and 30.10.2002. The said period has already expired on
16.6.2001 and 7.7.2001 respectively. After more than nine years, it
is not desirable to direct the respondents to renew the lease. No
case is made out to interfere with the rest part of the order of the
learned Single Judge. There is no merit in Letters Patent Appeals and
Civil Applications and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.]
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
(swamy)
Top