Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/24797/2006 1/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24797 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
DAYALBHAI
SOMABHAI AHIR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VAIBHAV VYAS for MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of
the respondent authorities of rejecting the application of the
petitioner for renewal of quarry lease for ordinary sand. The
petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the
communication/order dated 16.08.2003 passed by Collector, Surat,
order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the Additional Director (Appeals),
Geology and Mining Department and order dated 23.02.2006 passed by
the Deputy Secretary, Industry and Mines Department.
2.0 The
facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was having quarry
lease under the provisions of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 since
1985 and it was renewed from time to time. In February 1999, the
petitioner was granted renewal of the said lease for a period of
three years with the understanding that it was the last renewal
permissible under the Rules and under these circumstances, the
petitioner did not apply renewal of the said lease on expiry of its
period in 2002. In October 2002, the petitioner came to know that it
is the policy of the Government that even after expiry of the maximum
limit of lease permissible under the Rules, if the lease holder is
interested, the same can be granted to the lease holder with the
permission of the Government. On 29.10.2002, the petitioner presented
an application for renewal of lease, however the said application was
not accepted by the office of the Collector, Surat orally informing
the petitioner that the application is time barred. On 29.10.2002,
the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of Geology and
Mining Department with a request that the said application may be
forwarded to the Collector, Surat for doing needful. On 16.08.2003,
the Collector, Surat informed the petitioner that nothing is required
to be done by him in the matter as the petitioner has not made any
application in this regard and the maximum period of 12 years
permissible under the Rules for the renewal has also expired in the
year 2002. On 15.07.2005, the appellate authority rejected the Appeal
of the petitioner. On 23.02.2006, Revision Application of the
petitioner also came to be rejected by the competent authority.
Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the policy was not put to
the notice of the petitioner at any point of time by any of the
authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted
that the petitioner is entitled to claim renewal of his lease, as per
the policy of the Government which the authorities have not granted
and thereby the petitioner is arbitrarily discriminated.
4.0 Learned
advocate for the respondent has further submitted that nothing is
required to be done by the authority in the matter as the petitioner
has not made any application in this regard and the maximum period of
12 years permissible under the Rules for the renewal has also expired
in the year 2002.
5.0 Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
6.0 As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the
petitioner has not made application in time. The maximum period of 12
years permissible under the Rules for the renewal has expired in the
year 2002. Furthermore, the petitioner has not carried out the
activity of mining since the year 2001. Thus, the renewal application
was not made within the stipulated period and the petitioner has not
carried out activity of mining since 2001. Hence, the petition is
required to be dismissed.
7.0 The
contention of the petitioner is that he was not informed about the
fact that he can apply for renewal of the lease and he was not aware
about it. The petitioner was not vigilant about his right and
therefore, he cannot be heard to say that he was not informed by
anybody.
8.0 In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top