Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13854/2009 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13854 of 2009
=========================================================
M/S
U U KADIWALA & CO. & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR,
SABARKANTHA, COLLECTOR OFFICE (MINERAL BRANCH) & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KUNAL NAIK for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
TUSHAR MEHTA AAG with MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s):1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 15/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Mr. J. K. Shah, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up
for final hearing today.
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order 02.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 2,
whereby respondent no. 2 directed the petitioners to stop their
mining activity.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm is engaged in
the business of mining bauxite since last more than 28 years. The
petitioner firm had applied for mining lease to the State Government,
pursuant to which the petitioner firm was awarded mining lease vide
order dated 24.08.1992 for an area of 2 hectares in the river bed of
river Mazum. Thereafter, lease deed dated 09.11.1982 came to be
entered into between the Government of Gujarat and the petitioner for
a period of 20 years. Since the said lease period was to expire in
2000, the petitioner made an application on 08.11.2001 to State
Government for renewal of mining lease, which is reportedly pending.
However, in view of the provisions of Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960 the mining lease is deemed to have been
extended and therefore, is presently in existence.
2.1. On
14.11.2008, the petitioner firm deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
with the State Government towards advance royalty for getting duly
stamped royalty passbooks issued in its favour. However, the
petitioner firm was not issued the said royalty passes by the
respondents authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners, made several
representations to the respondents for issuance of the royalty passes
but, the same were not considered. Therefore, the petitioners
approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 10489
of 2008. This Court vide order dated 05.11.2009 admitted the petition
and granted ad-interim relief to the effect that the concerned
authority shall take all necessary actions for issuance of royalty
passbooks to the petitioners. Pursuant to the order of this Court,
the concerned authority instead of issuing royalty passbooks for the
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- issued only one royalty passbook of Rs.
41,000/-.
2.2. Thereafter
respondent no. 1 carried out inspection of the land leased in favour
of the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 1 on 19.11.2009
issued Notice to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had
dispatched bauxite without payment of royalty. Subsequently,
respondent no. 2 vide order dated 02.12.2009, directed the
petitioners to stop their mining activity with immediate effect.
Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. It is the case of the
petitioners that before passing the impugned order dated 02.12.2009,
the respondent no. 2-authority has not afforded any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and has straightaway passed the said order
directing the petitioners to stop the mining activities. On perusal
of the record, I find substance in the said contention raised by the
petitioners. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2
authority is not in a position to show from the record that the
petitioners were heard before passing the impugned order dated
02.12.2009. Thus, it has to be said that the impugned order dated
02.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 2-authority is in violation of
the principles of natural justice. In the fitness of things, it would
be appropriate that respondent no. 2-authority decides the issue
afresh, after giving due opportunity to the petitioners to present
their case.
4. In
view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 02.12.2009
passed by respondent no. 2-authority will be treated as a notice to
the petitioners. The petitioners will file their reply to the said
notice within a period of ten days from today. On receipt of such
reply from the petitioners, the respondent no. 2-authority shall fix
a date of hearing, which may be convenient to both the sides and
will, thereafter, proceed with the matter on the date so fixed. After
giving due opportunity to the petitioners to present its case,
respondent no. 2-authority will render its decision, within a period
of eight weeks thereafter. Till the final decision is rendered by
respondent no. 2. the stay on the mining activities imposed by
respondent no.2-authority will remain in abeyance on condition that
the petitioners will furnish all details regarding the materials
shifted from the site in question and will make necessary payment
towards the royalty thereof to respondent no.2-authority before the
final decision is rendered.
5. With
the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. It is made clear that
non-compliance of the aforesaid order will not give any right to
either party for the revival of the petition.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top