Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2582/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2582 of 2011
=========================================
TEJALBEN
HITESHBHAI TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
KUNAN B NAIK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MINI NAIR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 12/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule,
of which service is waived by learned AGP for the respondents.
The
petitioner has prayed for grant of quarry lease for the purpose of
mining of sandstone in an area of two hectares comprised in Survey
No. 1557 falling within revenue limits of Village Dhrangadhra. His
application for the purpose was rejected by impugned order dated
02.02.2011 on the basis of the opinion of Mamlatdar that there was
overlapping of claims and applications for the same land for the same
purpose. As explained in further affidavit of Geological
Assistant, Gandhinagar, the application of the petitioner was
received on 03.03.2008 and it was sent to the Mamlatdar, Dhrangadhra,
for “the revenue opinion” on 14.03.2008; whereas the
application of one of Mr. Utpal D. Nimbark was received on 27.07.2009
for the same area, and on 30.07.2009, it was sent to the Mamlatdar,
Dhrangadhra for the revenue opinion. Thus, it was admitted and clear
that the petitioner’s application was submitted prior in point of
time and ought to have been processed as such. That being the limited
controversy required to be resolved in the present petition and no
other reason having been cited in the impugned order for rejecting
the application of the petitioner, the petition is allowed and rule
is made absolute accordingly with the direction that impugned order
dated 02.02.2011 of the Collector rejecting application dated
03.03.2008 of the petitioner shall stand quashed and the Collector
concerned shall decide afresh that application on the basis of the
date of the application filed by the petitioner. No costs.
[D.H.WAGHELA,
J.]
JYOTI
Top