Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/657/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 657 of 2010
=========================================================
LATESHKUMAR
HARSHADRAY PANDYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
R.K.MANSURI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR CB UPADHYAYA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner herein has prayed to direct the respondents to decide the
application dated 16.01.2007 of the petitioner for mining lease and
further to direct the respondents to give priority for deciding the
application without considering the notification dated 17.12.2009.
2. The
petitioner on 16.01.2007 preferred an application under Form I of the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 seeking mining lease of Mineral Quartz
admeasuring area of 4 hectares situated at Survey No. 182/2 Sim of
Gariya, Lunavada, Panchmahals before the Collector, Mining
Department. It is the case of the petitioner that though the
petitioner fulfills the requirement for Mining lease to be allotted,
the respondent authorities have not paid any heed inspite of opinions
from experts in his favour. Further the respondent has been inviting
new applications without deciding the petitioner’s application which
is pending since long. Hence this petition is preferred.
3. Mr.
Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent no. 1 has passed notification on 17.12.2009
inviting applications for mining lease for survey no. 182/2 of sim of
Gariya, Lunavada. He has submitted that as per section 11(2) of the
Act the applicant whose application is received earlier shall have
the preferential right to be considered for grant of mining lease
over the applicant whose application is received later.
4. This
court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
papers on record. As a result of the said exercise, this court is of
the view that in the interest of justice, the following directions
are required to be issued:
The
application of the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated
17.12.2009 shall be considered within a period of three months from
the last date of receipt of applications.
It
is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the
matter.
The
respondent authority shall decide the application of the petitioner
in accordance with law and relevant provisions of the Act.
5. With
the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of.
Direct service is permitted. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top
