Ashapura Minechem Limited vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5352 Guj

         C/SCA/7247/2021                                   ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7247 of 2021

==========================================================
                       ASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AS VAKIL(962) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.MEET THAKKAR, AGP (99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 05/05/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP for the Respondent.

2. Mr. A S Vakil states that by way of present SCA, the Petitioner challenges 6 orders dated 07.12.2018 / 04.01.2019 (Annexures-1 to

6), passed by the Respondent No.1-State/Revisional Authority by which the Respondent No.1-State had dismissed 6 Revision Applications (out of 29 Revision Applications) of the Petitioner and further seeks remand of the said 6 applications to the Respondent No.2-Collector, to be decided alongwith the already remanded 23 remanded Revision Applications. Out of the 23 Revision Applications, 1 application was remanded by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-11) passed in the Petitioner's SCA 7449 of 2019 and thereafter based upon said judgment and order dated 18.11.2019, the Respondent No.1- State/Revisional Authority remanded the 22 applications to the Respondent No.2-Collector. The details of the 6 dismissed

C/SCA/7247/2021 ORDER

Revision Applications which pertain to present SCA, (as per table at paragraph 2.13 of the present SCA) are as follows:

Sr.    Date      of        Order     of     Order of     Order of           Date      of
No     Application         the                       the the Revisional     Application
.      for quarry          Collector        Appellate     Authority         under Rule
       lease               dismissing       Authority     dismissing        50(2)
                           applications     dismissing    six Revision      before
                                            appeals       Applications      Revisional
                                                                            Authority
      11.02.2004           12.09.2006       05.10.2015   07.12.2018         22.07.2020
      28.12.2004           12.09.2006       05.10.2015   07.12.2018         22.07.2020
      28.12.2004           12.09.2006       25.08.2015   07.12.2018         22.07.2020
      31.08.2005           12.09.2006       05.10.2015   07.12.2018         22.07.2020
      07.09.2005           12.09.2016       19.08.2015   07.12.2018         22.07.2020
      27.10.2005           12.09.2016       19.08.2015   04.01.2019         22.07.2020

3. The brief background as per Mr. A S Vakil is that the Respondent No.1-State had passed two orders dated 20.10.1989 (Annexure-7) and 25.01.1990 (Annexure-8) in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, thereby permitting the Petitioner to hold area for quarry lease in excess of ceiling provided under Rule 15(1) of the said 1966 Rules. Pursuant to the said two orders, the Petitioner had made 29 applications for quarry lease to the Respondent No.2- Collector, Bhuj. Said 29 applications for quarry lease came to be dismissed by the Respondent No.2-Collector on the ground that the area applied for exceeds the ceiling limit. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had preferred 29 appeals before the Appellate Authority under the 1966 Rules. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the 29 appeals. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred 29 Revision Applications before the Respondent No.1-State/Revisional Authority under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

C/SCA/7247/2021 ORDER

2010 (because, by this time, the 1966 Rules were repealed and the Respondent No.1-State had made the 2010 Rules). Pending the 29 Revision Applications, the 2010 Rules came to be repealed and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 came to be made by the Respondent No.1-State.

4. Out of the 29 Revision Applications, the Revisional Authority had dismissed 7 Revision Applications and the remaining 22 Revision Applications were kept pending.

5. In respect of 1 out of the 7 dismissed Revision Application, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of SCA 7449 of 2019. This Court by judgment and order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-11) allowed the said SCA 7449 of 2019, set aside the order of the Revisional Authority, Appellate Authority and the Collector and remanded the matter to the Respondent No.2-Collector to decide the quarry lease application de novo in terms of the directions/observations made therein. Based upon this Court's judgment and order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-11), the Revisional Authority, by 22 separate orders passed in July 2020, remanded the "pending" 22 Revision Applications to the Respondent No.2-Collector. Thus, 23 applications out of 29 applications stood remanded to the Respondent No.2-Collector (in November, 2019 / July, 2020).

6. Mr. A S Vakil further states that based upon this Court's judgment and order dated 18.11.2019, the Petitioner had filed 6 applications all dated 22.07.2020 (table at paragraph 2.13 of the present SCA) in the 6 dismissed Revision Applications, under Rule 50(2) of the

C/SCA/7247/2021 ORDER

2017 Rules seeking interalia the remand of the said 6 applications also. However, the said 6 applications dated 22.07.2020 have not been heard so far.

7. Mr. A S Vakil further states that because the 23 remanded applications were not being heard/decided by the Respondent No.2-Collector, the Petitioner had filed before this Court, SCA 6641 of 2021 to direct the Respondent No.2-Collector to forthwith decide the 23 remanded applications. This Court by judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure-14) has already directed the Respondent No.2-Collector to decide the 23 remanded applications not later than 10.05.2021 in the manner stated therein.

8. In the above background, the present SCA has been filed with following prayers:

"(A) to quash and set aside:

(i) the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1350/R-540/Kutch (Annexure-1).

(ii) the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1345/R-546/Kutch (Annexure-2).

(iii) the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1290/R-533/Kutch (Annexure-3).

(iv) the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1342/R-543/Kutch (Annexure-4).

(v) the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1291/R-532/Kutch (Annexure-5).

         C/SCA/7247/2021                                     ORDER



           (vi)    the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by Respondent

No.1-Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 102015/1293/R-534/Kutch (Annexure-6).

And to remand the 6 quarry lease applications listed in paragraph 2.7 above, to the Respondent No.2-Collector;

(B) to command the Respondent No.2-Collector to immediately and forthwith hear and decide the said 6 quarry lease applications (listed at serial no. 1 to 6 of the table in paragraph 2.7) on or before 10.05.2021,in terms of the directions/observations made by this Hon'ble Court in its judgement and order dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure- ) passed in Petitioner's Special Civil Application No. 6641 of 2021;

(C) to grant interim relief in terms of paragraph (A) and (B) above with a view to prevent the right of the Petitioner for grant of the quarry lease, in terms of the remaining 6 applications listed at paragraph 2.7 above from being forfeited automatically under Rule 29(3) of the 2017 Concession Rules;

(D) to provide for the costs of the present Special Civil Application;

(E) to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Mr. A S Vakil further submits that the Petitioner shall not press / withdraw the 6 applications dated 22.07.2020 pending before the Respondent No.1-State/Revisional Authority.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to and hereby sets aside the 6 orders at Annexures-1 to 6 of the SCA, passed by the Respondent No.1-Revisional Authority in 6 Revision Applications of the Petitioner, remands the same to the Respondent No.2- Collector and directs the Respondent No.2-Collector to decide the said 6 Applications not later than 10.05.2021 alongwith the other

C/SCA/7247/2021 ORDER

23 remanded applications, by taking into consideration the proper interpretation of the Rules mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 of this Court passed in the Petitioner's SCA 6641 of 2021. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

10. A S Vakil points out that as per some local newspaper reports of Bhuj, the Collector, Bhuj as well as the Geologist, Bhuj are presently suffering from COVID and undergoing treatment/isolation. If that be so, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that the Respondent No.2-Collector may decide all the 29 remanded applications (23 applications pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2021 and 6 applications pursuant to the present order) within a reasonable time without being influenced by the time limit prescribed in Rule 29(3) of the 2017 Rules.

11. Copy of this order be communicated to Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP for onward communication. In addition to regular mode of service and service by email by the Registry, direct service by email by the Petitioner is also permitted.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH / BIMAL