Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Chhanabhai Retiwala vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2865 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
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 or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI CHHANABHAI RETIWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 24/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in which the
petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
"7(a) xxxx
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the
respondent authorities more particularly
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to comply with the
order dated 08.06.2016 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Special Civil Application No.16921
of 2014 and further be pleased to quash and
set aside the notice dated 05.12.2020, issued
by the respondent No.3 herein. It is further
prayed that till the case is decided more
particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be
directed to open the lock of quarry lease of
the present petitioner and further they may
be directed to issue an online royalty passes
for the lease of the present petitioner.
c. Pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay
the execution and implementation of the
notice dated 05.12.2020 and further be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities
to open the applied lock of online account
regarding the lease of the present petitioner
and further direct the respondent authorities
to issue royalty passes for the same.
d. xxxx"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala for
the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Raval for the
respondents.
3. On the last occasion, when the matter
was listed on 11.2.2021, this Court asked the
learned AGP to take instructions from the
respondents. Learned AGP has taken the
instructions from the concerned respondents and
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
therefore, today, learned advocates for the
parties have jointly requested to dispose off
this petition finally at admission stage looking
to the issue involved in the petition.
4. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Raval waives
service of notice of rule for respondents.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was granted lease-
hold right for excavation of black trap mineral
of survey no.197 paiki admeasuring 1 hectare of
village Borigala, Taluka Mandvi, District Surat
from 15.5.1996 for a period of ten years. It is
renewed by the competent authority for a period
of ten years. The respondent authority issued
show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he
should not be charged/penalized for the illegal
excavation of the adjacent land. Thereafter, the
online account of the petitioner was locked and
the respondent authority was not issuing royalty
passes to the petitioner. The petitioner
therefore filed Special Civil Application No.
16921 of 2014.
6. It is submitted that this Court, vide
order dated 8.6.2016, disposed off the said
petition with certain directions to the
petitioner as well as the respondents. Copy of
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
the said order is placed on record at page 30.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred
to paragraph 7 thereof:
"7. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, in my opinion,
following order would meet the ends of justice:
"The petitioner shall deposit 20% of
Rs.3,03,73,469/- since the said amount deals
with excavation of lease hold right of survey
no.197, 186, 188, 190 of the said village. The
said amount shall be paid within four weeks from
today.
On depositing the said amount, the respondent
authority shall issue Royalty passes to the
petitioner. The petitioner shall also file Reply
to the show cause notice within a period of four
weeks from today. After giving an opportunity of
hearing, the respondent authority shall decide
the same within a period of four months
thereafter. The petitioner shall also deposit
10% of the remaining amount quarterly, till the
case is decided.
It is hereby made clear that this Court has not
decided the issue as to Whether the petitioner
has illegally excavated minerals from survey
Nos.197,186, 188 & 190 of the said village or
not. It is needless to say that the amount
deposited by the petitioner, as directed
hereinabove, would be subject to decision of the
respondent authority."
7. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Kinariwala that pursuant to the aforesaid
order passed by this Court, the petitioner has
deposited 20% of Rs.3,03,73,469/- within
stipulated period. The respondent authority,
therefore, issued royalty passes to the
petitioner. It is further submitted that as per
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
the said order, the petitioner has deposited 10%
of the remaining amount quarterly and till date
the petitioner has deposited more
Rs.1,43,00,000/- with the respondent authority.
However, the respondent authority has not decided
the case though this court has directed to decide
the case within a period of four months.
8. At this stage, it is pointed out that
now the impugned communication dated 5.12.2020 is
received by the petitioner wherein it is stated
that the petitioner has not deposited 10% of the
remaining amount quarterly as per the aforesaid
order passed by this Court and therefore the
virtual account of the petitioner with regard to
quarry lease in question is locked. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is asked to pay
remaining amount of Rs.1,20,16,292/- within a
period of five days, else the quarry lease of the
petitioner would be cancelled. The petitioner
has, therefore, filed the present petition.
9. The grievance raised by the learned
advocate for the petitioner is that as per the
aforesaid order, the petitioner has regularly
made the payment and till date more than
Rs.1,43,00,000/- has been paid. On the other
hand, the respondent authority has not decided
the issue though this Court has directed to
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
decide within a period of four months and
therefore it is not open for the respondent
authority to lock the virtual account of the
petitioner and to stop issuance of royalty
passes. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned
communication be quashed and set aside. It is
stated, under instructions, that the petitioner
is ready and willing to deposit the amount as per
the order dated 8.6.2016 passed by this Court in
the aforesaid petition till the issue is decided
by the respondent authority.
10. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Raval,
after taking instructions from the respondent
authority submitted that the respondent authority
will decide the issue within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
11. I have considered the submissions
canvassed by learned advocates for the parties. I
have also perused the material placed on record.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that
pursuant to the direction issued by this Court
vide order dated 8.6.2016 in the aforesaid
petition, the petitioner has till date, deposited
Rs.1,43,00,000/-. The said aspect is also
reflected from the impugned communication and the
statement annexed by the petitioner with the memo
of the petition.
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
12. It is also not in dispute that till
today, the respondent has not taken any decision
pursuant to the show cause notice issued earlier
which was in question before this Court in
Special Civil Application No.16921 of 2014. It is
also not in dispute that this Court has directed
the respondent authority to decide the same
within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of reply to the show cause notice filed
by the petitioner. Thus, on one hand, the
respondent authority has not taken any decision
in spite of the direction issued by this Court
and on the other hand, now the impugned
communication is sent to the petitioner and the
petitioner is asked to deposit remaining amount
of Rs.1,20,16,292/- within a period of five days
only. Even the virtual account of the petitioner
has been locked. Thus, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the action of
the respondent authority of issuing the impugned
communication dated 5.12.2020 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondent authority shall
decide the the issue as per the direction given
by this Court in the order dated 8.6.2016 passed
in Special Civil Application No.16921 of 2014
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order in accordance with law. It
is open for the petitioner to point out the
C/SCA/2865/2021 JUDGMENT
relevant aspect to the respondent no.2-Collector.
It is open for the petitioner to file additional
reply before the respondent-Collector within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of
this order and after the said reply is received,
the respondent no.2 shall decide the issue within
a period of four weeks thereafter in accordance
with law. The respondent is directed to open the
lock of virtual account of the petitioner.
13. With the aforesaid direction, this
petition stands disposed. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
SRILATHA
