Gujarat High Court
M/S Rathore Steels vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8844 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M/S RATHORE STEELS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent No.1 State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Collector, Vadodara, whereby application preferred by the petitioner for grant of certificate under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, has been rejected inter alia on the ground that vide an order dated 25.12.2023, an earlier application preferred by the petitioner, had been rejected by the Collector and whereas Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined it does not appear that the petitioner had been preferred any appeal against the said order before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department against the same. The petitioner being aggrieved by such an order, has approached this Court directly.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatia for the petitioner would submit that the Collector had committed a grave error, while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner, more particularly since the earlier order i.e. order dated 25.12.2023 was not a rejection at all. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatia would take this Court to the order in question and would submit that a perusal thereof would reveal that the only reason the application was not considered, was that a certificate, which was required to be issued by the District Industries Center, Vadodara, had not been attached with the application. Learned advocate would further submit that even the tenor of the order does not reveal that the Collector, Vadodara, had rejected the application rather, if once goes by the terminology used in the order, it would appear that the Collector has consigned the application to file. Learned advocate would submit that under such circumstances, since the application had not been considered on account of there being a lacuna in the application, it was always open for the applicant i.e. the petitioner to have cured the lacuna / defect and applied once again. Learned advocate would submit that such a restricted and narrow reading of the Rules, would create a havoc in the system inasmuch as each and every order of the Collector rejecting an application for grant of certificate under Section 63AA would to be perforce required to be challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and however, broadly the provisions of Section 63AA are to be read, such a meaning is and cannot be attributed. Thus, submitting learned advocate would request this Court to interfere and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Vadodara, dated 09.04.2024.
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
4. Learned AGP Mr. Shah for the respondents, would vehemently oppose the present petition. Learned AGP Mr. Shah would tender an affidavit-in-reply and would submit that the Collector was bound by the statutory provisions and whereas no error has been committed by the Collector, while rejecting the application. Learned AGP would emphasize on Section 63AA 3(c) and 3(d) of the Act and would submit that the scheme of the Act is that upon an applicant making an application for grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose, the Collector after making an inquiry is satisfied that the purchaser had validly purchased the land for a bona fide industrial purpose in conformity with the provisions of sub- section 1, then a certificate to such effect would be issued, if the form that would be prescribed.
5. On the other hand, according to the learned AGP, if the Collector is not satisfied then after giving an opportunity of being heard shall refuse certificate to the person in question and whereas upon such refusal, the sale of land to the purchaser in question, would be deemed to be in contravention of Section 63AA. Most importantly, learned AGP would emphasize on Clause 3d (i) of Section 63AA and would submit that the said provision inter alia envisages that upon refusal to issue a certificate by a Collector then the purchaser may file an appeal to the State Government or such officer as having been authorized by the State Government. Learned AGP would submit that the application of the present petitioner having been rejected, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have preferred an appeal before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and having not preferred an appeal, it was not open for the Collector to have considered the application preferred by the present petitioner afresh. Thus, submitting learned AGP, would request this Court not to interfere in the impugned order.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record and the provisions of Section 63AA as far as may be applicable, to this Court, the question, which requires consideration would appear to be as 'whether upon rejection of an application for grant of certificate under Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 the purchaser is mandatorily required to file an appeal before the appropriate authority or in other words, would the Collector not be empowered to consider an application by the same purchaser afresh upon rejection of an earlier application for the very selfsame purpose'.
7. To better appreciate the question, Section 63AA is reproduced herein below for benefit.
"63AA. (1) Nothing in section 63 shall prohibit the sale or the agreement for the sale of land for which no permission is required under sub-section (1) of section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 in favour of any person for use of such land by such person for a bonafide industrial purpose:
Provided that -
(a) the land is not situated within the urban agglomeration as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,
(b) where the area of the land proposed to be sold exceeds ten hectares the person to whom the land is proposed to be sold in pursuance of this sub-section shall obtain previous permission of the industries Commissioner, Gujarat State or such other officer, as the State Government may by an order in writing, authorise in this behalf,
(c) The area of the land proposed to be sold shall not exceed four times the area on which construction for a bonafiede industrial purpose is proposed to be made by the purchaser:
Provided that any additional land which may be required for pollution control measures or required under any relevant law for the time being in force and certified as such by the relevant Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined authority under that law shall not be taken into account for the purpose of computing four times the area:
[Provided further that where the land is sold to a purchaser which is a company as defined by clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, it may offer the equity shares of the company, to the person by whom such land is being sold, in lieu of the sale price of such land and if such peron is in agreement for accepting such equity shares, either in full or partly, then it shall be incumbent upon such company to allot such equity shares of equivalent amount, either in full or partly, to such person,]
(d) where the land proposed to be sold is owned by a person to belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the sale shall be subject to the provisions of section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1870.
(2) Nothing in section 63A shall apply to any sale made in pursuance of sub-section (1).
(3) (a) Where the land is sold to a person in pursuance of sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to as " the purchaser"), he shall within thirty days from the date of the purchase of the land for a bonafide industrial purpose send a notice of such purchase in such a form along with such other particulars as may be prescribed to the Collector and endorse a copy thereof to the Mamlatdar.
(b)Where the purchaser fails to send the notice and other particulars to the Collector Under clause (a) within the period specified therein, be shall be liable to pay in addition to the Non-agricultural assessment leviable under this Act, such fine not exceeding two thousand Rupees as the Collector may, subject to rules made under this Act, direct.
(c) Where on receipt of the notice of the date of purchase for the use of land for a Bonafide industrial purpose and other particulars sent by the purchaser under clause (a), the Collector, after making such inquiry as he deems fit-
(i) Is satisfied that the purchaser of such land has validly purchased the land for A bonafide industrial purpose in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall Issue a certificate to that effect to the purchaser in such form and within such time as may be prescribed.Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
(ii) Is not so satisfied, he shall, after giving the purchaser an opportunity of being heard, refuse to issue such certificate and on such refusal, the sale of land to the purchaser shall be deemed to be in contravention of section 63.
(d) (i) The purchaser aggrieved by the refusal to issue a certificate by the Collector under Sub-clause (ii) of clause © may file an appeal to the State Government or such officer as it May, by an order in writing, authorise in this behalf. (iii) The State Government or the authorised officer shall after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard pass such order on the appeal as it or be deems fit. (4) (a) The purchaser shall comply with the provisions of any law for the time being in force or any order or directions of the Central Government or State Government or any Corporation owned or controlled by such Government, Government Company, local authority or statutory authority in relation to use of land for industrial purpose before the land is put to use for such purpose.
(b) the purchaser to whom a certificate is issued under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Sub-section (3) shall commence production of goods or providing of services within five years from such date provided that the period of five years may on an application made by the purchaser in that behalf be extended by two years by the Collector as he may by an order in writing in such circumstances as may be prescribed:
Provided further that the Collector shall not extend such period for more than a period of one year at a time:
Provided also that such aggregate period of seven years may, on an application made by the purchaser in that behalf, and on the payment of fifty per cent of the prevailing Jantri value, be extended by another three years by the State Government.] [(4A) In case where the purchaser fails to commence the production of goods or providing of services within three years from the date of certificate issued under sub-section (3) or thereafter, the Collector may, after an application is made to him in that behalf, grant permission by an order for sale or transfer of such land: Provided that such permission shall be granted by the Collector only upon the payment of -
(i) 40 per cent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made before the completion of a period of five years from the date of certificate;
(ii) 60 per cent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made after a period of five years but before the completion of a Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined period of seven years from the date of certificate;
(iii) 100 percent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made thereafter.
(4B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4) or sub-
section (4A), -
(i) where the land is sold to a person in pursuance of sub-section (1) for the purpose of establishing an industrial park in consonance with the policy and conditions of the State Government in that behalf, the purchaser shall fulfill all the conditions in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed;
(ii) the purchaser shall be required to obtain certificate/certificates from the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State, in the manner as may be prescribed of having fulfill the conditions as referred to in clause (i);
(iii) in case where the purchaser fails to obtain the certificate/certificates as referred to in clause (ii), the provisions of sub-section (5), in so far as vesting of such land or part of such land in case where the purchaser has already transferred any portion or portions of such land, in the State Government and disposal of such land are concerned, shall mutatis mutandis apply;
(iv) the purchaser shall be entitled to transfer or sell portion of such land to any person for establishing an industry thereon subject to the provisions of the policy of the State Government with regard to the industrial park;
(v) the transferee under clause (iv) or any person to whom such land may be transferred in any subsequent transaction or transactions shall be entitled to sell or transfer such portion of land to any person for the purpose as provided in clause (iv);
(vi) in case where the purchaser is of the view, after a period of three years from the date of purchaser of such land, that it is not possible for him to fulfill the conditions and obtain the certificate/certificates as referred to in this section, he may make an application to the Collector for grant of permission to sale or transfer of such land and the Collector shall thereupon grant such permission only upon the payment of,-
(a) 40 per cent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made before the completion of a period of five years from the date of certificate; as referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (3);
(b) 60 per cent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made after a period of five years, but before the completion of a period of seven years from the date of certificate; as referred Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined to in sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (3);
(c) 100 per cent. of the prevailing Jantri value, if the application is made thereafter:
Provided that such permission for sale of such land shall be granted only for the purpose of use of such land for the bonafide industrial purpose.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, the expression "bonafide industrial purpose" includes and shall always be deemed to have included the establishment of the industrial park.] [(5) Where the Collector after making such inquiry deems fit and giving the purchaser an opportunity of being heard comes to the conclusion that the purchaser has failed to commence production of goods or providing of services within the period as specified in clause (b) of sub-section (4), or the period extended under the provisos to the clause, the land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances on payment to the purchaser of such compensation as the State Government may determine and such land shall be disposed of by the State Government in the manner as may be prescribed.]]"
8. Now, before examining the provisions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the order dated 25.12.2023 passed by the Collector, Vadodara, which order is the basis for rejecting the second application preferred by the present petitioner. Perusal of the said order reveals that while the petitioner had made an online application on 05.11.2023 for grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose, the same had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not annex certificate of District Industries Center, Vadodara, which was mandatory. Most importantly, it would appear that the Collector did not reject the application preferred by the present petitioner. The exact words used by the Collector, being translated broadly would be that 'since the opinion of the District Industries Center, Vadodara, is not produced, the application is consigned to file'.
9. While it is attempted to be contend by the learned AGP that title of Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined the order clearly reflects that the order was with regard to rejecting an application for grant of certificate under Section 63AA by the petitioner, but the said submission does not impress this Court at all. To this Court, it would appear that the title of an order is but one of the factors which would have to be looked into to understand what is the nature of the order. The title of an order, could not be the only measure of finding out what the intent and purport of order would be. As noted hereinabove, the intent of the order is intimating the present petitioner that since he did not produce a certificate, which was mandatorily required, therefore, his application was consigned to file i.e. his application is not being considered at that stage by the Collector. Such an order could not be treated as an order, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
10. To this Court, it would appear that the Collector is abrogating to himself, the powers of grant of certificate under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act, as being a quasi-judicial power. To this Court, a fair reading of Section 63AA does not in any manner reveal that the Collector is required to consider such application in any other manner than as an administrative function. Perusal of Section 63AA inter alia reveals that a purchaser could purchase or could enter into an agreement for sale of an agricultural land, irrespective of the provisions of subsection 1 of Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, if the land is to be used by the person in question for a bona fide industrial purpose. The provisions also lays down certain exceptions to the normal Rules i.e. the land should not be situated within urban agglomeration as described under ULC Act, that the area of land should not exceed 10 hectares and whereas it is mentioned that even if it is exceeding 10 hectare then the permission of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State would be required to be obtained. It is also required to be stated that the total area of land should not exceed four times the area on which the construction for bona fide industrial purpose is Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined proposed to be made by the purchaser. The statute also provides that the four times ceiling would not be taken into account for the purpose of land, which may be required to be used for purpose of controlling pollution or which may be used for complying with any law which would be in force at that time. The Section also requires that upon purchase of land, the purchaser would intimate to the Collector within a period of 30 days about the land having been purchased for bona fide industrial purpose and whereas a notice of such purchase would also be sent to the Collector. The provisions envisage that in case the purchaser fails to send the notice and other particulars to the Collector, then within the prescribed period the purchaser is liable to pay fine, which is prescribed in Section itself. The section further prescribes that upon the Collector receiving the notice of purchase of land for bona fide industrial purpose by purchaser, then the Collector is required to satisfy that the lands are validly purchased for a bona fide industrial purpose in conformity with the provision of Sub-section 1, which is described in brief hereinabove and whereas upon such satisfaction being arrived, the certificate shall be issued in favour of the purchaser. It is also envisaged that the Collector, if not satisfied that the land was purchased for bona fide industrial purpose, then the Collector after giving an opportunity to the purchaser, refused to issue such certificate and upon such refusal, the transaction would be deemed to be in contravention of Section 63 of the Act. Furthermore, the Section also envisages the aspect with regard to the purchaser having the right to file an appeal before the State Government or any officer as may be notified by the State Government before whom an appeal could be filed against the order of Collector in refusing grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose.
11. A perusal of the overview of Section 63AA as observed hereinabove is to appreciate the scope and ambit of the powers, which are to be exercised by the Collector. To this Court said power does not in any manner Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined reflect any adjudicatory process to be entered into by the Collector to deem that the power exercised by the Collector under Section 63AA, is a quasi- judicial power. As noted hereinabove, the Collector is only exercising administrative function inasmuch as the Collector is required to satisfy himself as required under the provisions of Section and whereas no further rights of the parties are to be decided by the Collector, while considering an application under Section 63AA of the Tenancy Act. Thus, the contention on the part of the learned AGP, based upon an affidavit that power being exercised under Section 63AA is a quasi-judicial power, does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, such contention is not countenance.
12. In so far as aspect of rejection or the order in question being consigned to file, to this Court, while an order consigning an application to file on ground of the application being incomplete etc., would certainly not be qualified to be treated as an order whereby an application for grant of certificate has been rejected by the Collector. Taking it a bit further to this Court, it would appear that even if the order states that it is in nature of rejecting the application preferred by a purchaser, then also, what is required to be seen is the substance of the order. If a perusal of the order reveals that the rejection is purely on technical ground, to this Court, the provisions do not appear to suggest that even such an exigency, the purchaser is required to file an appeal before the State Government or any officer, authorised in that behalf and have the order rectified. On the contrary, to this Court, it would appear that since the Collector is exercising an administrative power unless the Collector rejects the application on substantive grounds i.e. to state that the Collector refuses to grant certificate to the purchaser, more particularly coming to a conclusion that the transaction with regard to purchase of land was not within a scope of Section 63AA or the land had not been validly purchased etc. any rejection or consigning to file on purely Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined technical grounds would not in any manner preclude a purchaser from making an application afresh after removing the lacuna or defect which had resulted in application being rejected / consigned to file in the first place
13. Correlating the above observation with the facts of the case, it would appear that vide an order dated 25.12.2023, the Collector had consigned the application preferred by the petitioner to file, more particularly noting that a requirement of certificate by DIC, Vadodara, was not placed by the present petitioner along with the application. Thereupon to this Court it was always open for the petitioner to have applied for grant of certificate for bona fide industrial purpose afresh after fulfilling order or after removing defect / lacuna. This Court is not able to accept the contention made on behalf of learned AGP that Section 63AA (d)(i) would have to be read to mean that upon rejection of any application under Section 63AA by the Collector, then the Collector loses his powers to consider any application afresh. Such an interpretation is not made out, however, liberally, this Court reads the Section in question rather as noted hereinabove, the section only lays down appellate of body where an aggrieved purchaser could approach in case the Collector rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of certificate of bona fide industrial purpose.
14. Furthermore, a perusal of Section 63AA(d)(i) clearly reveals that while there is no mandatoriness attached with the provisions and whereas the use of the word 'may' clearly reflects the discretion left to the person concerned to file an appeal against the order of refusal to grant appropriate certificate by the Collector. While it is true that the word 'may' could be construed as 'shall' in certain statute, but what would be relevant, would be the provision and the effect thereof.
15. The relevant in this regard would be to refer to decision of Hon'ble Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024(4) SCC 419, para 9 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced herein below:
"9. There is no doubt that the word "may" ordinarily does not mean "must". Ordinarily, "may" will not be construed as "shall".
But this is not an inflexible rule. The use of the word "may" in certain legislations can be construed as "shall", and the word "shall" can be construed as "may". It all depends on the nature of the power conferred by the relevant provision of the statute and the effect of the exercise of the power. The legislative intent also plays a role in the interpretation of such provisions. Even the context in which the word "may" has been used is also relevant."
16. A perusal of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the purport of the word 'may' as to whether it has to be construed as 'may' or 'shall' depends on the power conferred by the relevant provisions of the statute and the effect of exercise of such power.
17. In context of the issue on hand, it would appear that the provision enumerates the appellate jurisdiction i.e. the remedy, which is available to a person, when an application for grant of certificate under Section 63AA is refused by the Collector. The key word to the Court in the provision would be 'the purchaser aggrieved by the refusal' and 'may'. To this Court, it would appear that the first condition to maintain an appeal would be that the person concerned should be aggrieved by the order of refusal. Furthermore, the use of word 'may' also makes it clear that even if a person is aggrieved by an order of refusal, he may chose to file an appeal before an officer appointed by the State Government in this regard. Viewed from the fact situation, it would appear that in the instant case, the Collector, vide order dated 25.12.2023 did not outrightly reject the application of the petitioner Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined rather the Collector had consigned the application to file since the application did not contain a requisite document. While it would be open for the petitioner to have appealed against the said decision, more particularly if the reasons for consigning to file were not valid. On the other hand, since it was the incompleteness of the application, which led if the same being consigned to file, it would always be reading the purport of the enactment, for the petitioner to complete the application and file afresh.
18. To this Court, it would appear that when an application is rejected / consigned to file on the ground of incompleteness of the application or on the ground of any lacuna and whereas if the applicant completes the application that is to say that the incomplete part of the application or the lacuna concerned is taken care of, then it is always open for the applicant to file an application for Section 63AA afresh and whereas the provision would not be read to mean that each and every order of rejection / order of consign to file has to be necessarily questioned before the Appellate Authority.
19. This Court, at this stage, hastens to clarify that this would be the position, if the rejection or consigning to file were on the ground of incompleteness of the application or any lacuna in the application and when an application is rejected on substantive aspect and the said aspect remaining on record, it would not be open for the person concerned, to file afresh since the reasons for rejection would still remain.
20. In view of the foregoing discussions, to this Court, the following conclusion would be arrived at:
(1) Section 63AA(d)(i) while it states the remedy available to a person aggrieved by an order of rejection of an application for Section 63AA, such provision does not lay down that every order of Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined rejection / consigning the application to file has to be necessarily appealed.
(2) When an application for grant of certificate under Section 63AA is rejected / consigned to file on the ground of incompleteness of the application or on the ground of any lacuna, which lacuna could be filled up / clarified, then it is open for the person, whose application is rejected / consigned to file, to file afresh after completing the application or clarifying / filling up the lacuna concerned.
(3) On the other hand, if the applicant for grant of certificate under Section 63AA is rejected on a substantive ground, then the applicant without having the order interfered or the ground of rejection continuing, would not be entitled to file an application afresh for the very selfsame purpose.
21. Having regard to the above conclusions, the following directions are passed:
(a) The impugned order dated 09.04.2024 is quashed and set aside.
(b) The Collector, Vadodara, shall consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner dated 04.01.2024 afresh, without being influenced by reasons of order dated 25.12.2023 not having been challenged by the petitioner.
(c) The application shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and whereas the same shall be finally decided within a statutory period.Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8844/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined With this observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Wed May 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 07:40:15 IST 2025