IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 885 of 2004
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO
Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
————————————————————–
DAYALBHAI SOMABHAI AHIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 885 of 2004
MR NIRZAR S DESAI for Petitioner No. 1
MR PRADIP BHAT AGP for Respondent No. 1-3
————————————————————–
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date of decision: 01/02/2005
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Instead of taking Civil Application No.477 of
2005 for hearing, with the consent of both the parties,
the main Special Civil Application is taken up for final
hearing.
2The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate
direction directing the respondents to issue Advance
Royalty Collection Triplicate Passbook to the petitioner
since, as per the petitioner, the lease is deemed to have
been extended in light of Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor
and Minerals Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Rules”) till respondent no.2 – Collector takes
appropriate decision.
3Upon hearing Mr Desai, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr Pradip Bhate, learned AGP, for the
respondents, it appears that there is no dispute on the
point that the Director of the Geology in Appeal as per
the order dated 30th June, 2003 set aside the order of
the Collector rejecting the application for renewal of
the licence and directed for reconsideration of the
matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. There is also no dispute on the point that
earlier as per the order dated 16th October, 2002 the
District Collector rejected the application of the
petitioner for renewal of the licence. The ground
considered by the District Collector was that as the
total period of 12 years is over, as per Rule 18(4), the
renewal cannot be made and the another ground was that
since last two years the petitioner has not excavated the
mineral. The Director of Geology in appellate
jurisdiction found that it is not that in every case the
lease cannot be renewed after expiry of 12 years but it
has been observed that if there is sufficient mineral and
if the lessee is ready to comply with the conditions, the
matter can be considered for extension and for such
purpose reference is made to the instructions dated
22.3.1993 issued by the competent authority of the State
Government. It is an admitted position that uptil now
the District Collector after the remand has not taken any
decision either to renew the lease of the petitioner or
to reject the said application and it has been submitted
that the matter is pending before the District Collector.
4Mr Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner,
however, submitted that as per Rule 18 if the renewal
application is pending, the petitioner is entitled to
benefit of deeming fiction and it is obligatory on the
part of the respondent-authority to issue Advance Royalty
Collection Triplicate Passbook to the petitioner and the
petitioner is entitled to proceed on the basis that the
lease is in operation.
5Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I find that in case if the authority has taken the
decision of not to allot Advance Royalty Collection
Triplicate Passbook to the petitioner pending
consideration of the matter by the District Collector
after remand, such an approach on the part of the
authority cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
However, at the same time, it would be expected of the
District Collector to take appropriate decision in the
matter and issue cannot be kept hanging for an indefinite
period. The matter is remanded by the Director of
Geology since 30th June, 2003 and as the matter is uptil
now not decided by the District Collector, I find that
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
District Collector should be directed to take appropriate
decision on the renewal application of the petitioner as
early as possible, preferably within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of order of this Court.
6Hence, the relief prayed for by the petitioner to
allot the Advance Royalty Collection Triplicate Passbook
pending the consideration of the matter by the District
Collector after remand is not granted but, the District
Collector is directed to take appropriate decision in
accordance with law upon the application of the
petitioner for renewal of the licence as early as
possible, preferably within one month from the date of
receipt of order of this Court. It is made clear that
the District Collector shall be at liberty to decide the
matter independently without being influenced by the
order of this Court for refusing the prayer for allotment
of Advance Royalty Collection Triplicate Passbook to the
petitioner for the interregnum period.
7The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8In view of the order passed in the main Special
Civil Application, Civil Application No.477 of 2005 does
not survive and hence the same is disposed of
accordingly.
( Jayant Patel, J. )
*mohd