Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/570/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 570 of 2008
=========================================================
KANUBHAI
JITABHAI JALU - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PJ KANABAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MS ADITI P KANABAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
SATYAM CHHAYA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date
: 27/03/2008
ORAL
ORDER
After
some deliberations, Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that factual aspects have been brought by the
respondent State for the first time in the present petition to meet
with the case presented by the petitioner. Certain facts including
rojnama prepared on the spot allegedly in the presence of the
petitioner reveal certain facts which go against the written
submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner at least, should
be given an opportunity to meet with each allegation including
alleged non-compliance of the directions given by the officer who
had visited the mine of the present petitioner from Udaipur.
In
this situation, the petitioner is relegated to the Collector,
Surendranagar. The petitioner can make detailed representation and
put up his case de novo
before the Collector and the Collector, Surendranagar, after getting
detailed report and considering all relevant documents available on
the file, may decide whether the petitioner deserves cancellation of
the lease and if the Collector finds that the cancellation order
passed earlier was bad or otherwise, is not sustainable, then, the
Collector being the authority may take appropriate further steps
also, because, the lease has expired on 11th March, 2007.
If
the petitioner approaches the office of the Collector, Surendranagar
for supply copy of any of the documents, then, copies of such
documents including the inspection report of the officer who had
visited Udaipur, so also the rojnama prepared in the presence of the
petitioner, may be supplied at the cost of the petitioner, .
It
is clarified that the Collector shall decide the representation that
may be made by the petitioner as early as possible and preferably
within 120 days and the issue may be decided by him without being
influenced by the observations made by this Court. It is further
clarified that the present order is passed without entering into
the merits of the matter.
In
view of the above observations, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the petition. The petition is ordered
to be disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, is vacated. No costs. Direct service is permitted.
[C.K.
BUCH, J.]
pirzada/-
Top