Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/309/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 309 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7982 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2140 of 2011
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 309 of 2011
=================================================
RATANSINH
AMARSINH OAD - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for Appellant(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
This
appeal by the original writ petitioner is preferred challenging the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2010
wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
2. Brief
facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be
summarized as under.
The
appellant – original writ petitioner was granted quarry lease
in the year 1990 under the provisions of the Gujarat Minor Mineral
Rules, 1966. The said lease was renewed from time to time upto 1999.
In 1999, the appellant preferred an application for third renewal of
the lease. On 21.12.199, the said lease was sanctioned by the
Collector, Surat for the period from 8.9.1999 to 7.9.2002. The
record reveals that the Collector, Surat failed to execute the lease
deed in favour of the appellant. On 13.6.2002, the Collector revoked
the order granting renewal of the quarry lease. The record further
reveals that on 28.3.2003, the appellant preferred an appeal against
the said order, which came to be allowed by the appellate authority
and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Surat to consider the
case of the appellant afresh for renewal of the quarry lease.
The
record reveals that on 31.1.2004, the Collector, Surat granted
renewal of the quarry lease to the appellant for the period from
8.9.1999 to 7.9.2002 and also for the period from 8.9.1999 to
7.9.2005. However, the period from 8.9.1999 to 7.9.2002 was treated
as lapsed by efflux of time. It appears that by the time the lease
deed could be executed by the Collector, the period of lease expired.
On 3.10.2005, the appellant once again preferred an application for
renewal of the lease and the application was not entertained. An
appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order dated
29.10.2005 revoking the earlier order dated 3.1.2004 by which renewal
of the lease was sanctioned and by the very same order, the renewal
application of the appellant was also rejected on the ground of
delay. Vide order dated 26.6.2007, the appellate authority dismissed
the appeal of the appellant. Vide order dated 13.2.2010, the
revision application of the appellant also came to be rejected by the
competent authority.
3. Rule
11(4) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 reads as under :-
“11. Grant
of execution of quarry lease.-
(4) Where
a quarry lease is granted under sub-rule (1), the requisite lease
deed shall be executed in triplicate within three months of the date
of the order sanctioning the lease, and if no such deed is executed
within the said period, the order granting the lease shall be deemed
to have been revoked :
Provided
that where the competent officer is satisfied that the applicant is
not responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed, he
may permit the execution of the lease deed even after the expiry of
the said period of three months.”
4. All
the competent authorities recorded a finding that there was a gross
delay of 206 days at the end of the appellant in preferring the
renewal application for the fifth time and inspite of two notices
served upon the appellant dated 2.6.2004 and 21.9.2004, no steps were
taken by the appellant for renewal of the lease. The learned Single
Judge after taking into consideration the orders passed by the
authorities below has recorded a finding that the appellant remained
absolutely negligent and no sufficient cause could be assigned by the
appellant for the said delay. The learned Single Judge also took
notice of Rule 18(1)(A)(i) and (b)(i) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral
Rules, 1966, which reads as under :-
“18. Period
of the lease, renewals and availability of the area already granted,
– (1)(a)(i) Except in the case of ordinary sand, kankar, murram and
gravel, the period for which a quarry lease may be granted, shall not
exceed ten years in respect of all minor minerals.
Provided
that if the State Government is of the opinion that in the interest
of mineral development and industrial development of the State, it is
necessary so to do, for the purpose of establishing a mineral based
industry in the State, it may, for the reasons to be recorded in
writing, grant a quarry lease for a period not exceeding twenty
years.
(ii) … … … … … … …
(b)(i) The
lease for all minerals specified in sub-clause (I) of clause (a) may
be renewed by the competent officer for one or more periods and the
period of renewal at one time shall, not exceed ten year and the
total period for which the lease may be renewed shall not exceed
twenty years in the aggregate.
Provided
that if the State Government is of the opinion that in the interest
of the Mineral Development and industrial development of the State,
it is necessary so to do, for the purpose of establishing mineral
based industry in the State, it may, for the reasons to be recorded
in writing renew a quarry lease for a period not exceeding twenty
years.”
The
learned Single Judge noticed that in all 12 years’ period has expired
and as per Rule 18, there cannot be any further renewal of the quarry
lease as prayed for by the appellant.
5. We
also take notice of the fact that the mining activity has also
stopped since a long period of time and it would not be appropriate
at all to grant any relief to the appellant – writ petitioner
at this stage after such a long period of time.
6. We
are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned
Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and we do not find
any error, much less an error of law, in the impugned judgment and
order. For these reasons, the appeal fails and the same is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. In
view of the order passed in the main appeal dismissing the appeal, no
orders on the Civil Application.
[S.
J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[J.
B. PARDIWALA, J.]
sundar/-
Top