Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Bhabhutbhai Bhoi vs Collector Of Baroda & on 22 August, 2014
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/11507/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11507 of 2014
===========================================================
BHARATBHAI BHABHUTBHAI BHOI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR OF BARODA & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 22/08/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Kinariwala, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Mehta, learned AGP.
2. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned AGP, the petition has taken up for hearing today.
3. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:
"10(B) Be pleased to issue a Writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to open the E royalty server of the present petitioner and allow the petitioner to do mining activities in Orsang River Opp. Gamtal Village: Sankheda, Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/11507/2014 ORDER Tal: Sankheda, District: Baroda admeasuring 3.38.68 hectares of land for quarry sand."
4. At the time hearing of present petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that lease granted in favour of the petitioner was to expire with effect from 30.12.2008 and before date of expiry, the petitioner filed the application for renewal of licence. He also submitted that though the said application is not rejected and in fact, though any order in respect of the said application is not passed and despite the fact that the application is pending before the competent authority, the respondent has stopped issuing royalty passbook to the petitioner and that too without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the applicable rules.
6. Learned AGP for the respondent could not dispute the fact that the petitioner submitted the Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/11507/2014 ORDER application for renewal of lease before the date of expiry of the lease period. Learned AGP could not dispute that the application made by the petitioner is pending and any order in respect of the said application is yet not passed by the competent authority.
7. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and circumstances and more particularly the fact that the petitioner is a leaseholder and has already made an application for renewal of lease and such application is made before the lease period expired and since the factual aspect is not disputed by the learned AGP, the petition can be disposed of with below mentioned order.
8. The competent authority do take up the renewal application submitted by the petitioner for decision and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 12 weeks.
9. The competent authority shall decide the said renewal application after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/11507/2014 ORDER
10. The authority shall decide the said application independently and in accordance law and applicable rules and regulation.
11. After the order is passed, the further action will be subject to the order which may be passed by the competent authority below the application.
With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of.
Direct Service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 4 of 4