Gujarat High Court
Vrundavan Metal Suppliers Trough ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2024
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9177/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9177 of 2024
==========================================================
VRUNDAVAN METAL SUPPLIERS TROUGH RASIKBHAI VRAJLAL
RUPAPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7
MR AAYAN PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 26/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit and Allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to direct immediately restrain the private respondents herein from carrying out any mining operations in respect of the leases belonging to the petitioner and to immediately transfer the operation of online ATR Account and all the ancillary activities associated with the said mining leases from the private respondent to the petitioner herein, and to immediately initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the private respondents herein for having committed a fraud upon the offices of the concerned respondent authorities;
(C) During the pendency, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to immediately lock the online royalty account belonging to the leases belonging to the petitioner's firm i.e. Vrundavan metal Suppliers;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ex-parte interim relief in terms of prayer (C)."
2. Mr. Nirav R Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent nos.6 and 7, have committed a fraud by creating fraudulent documents. Fraud is committed not only against the petitioner, but against the respondent authorities as Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:50:20 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9177/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024 undefined well. The petitioner, reposing trust, had allowed the mining activities to the private respondents. It is submitted that the partnership deed is stated to have been executed by the private respondents on one hand and the petitioner on the other. It is submitted that in one of the documents, the petitioner has been shown as relieving partner. Last page of the deed, clearly suggests that the photo of the petitioner has been pasted by misusing the Power of Attorney, and the deed, is nothing but a forged document. It is submitted that the said aspect, was brought to the notice of the respondent-authorities; however, the respondent authorities have taken a decision that no steps are required to be taken under Rule 45 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2017'). It is submitted that petitioner, had filed a representation dated 28.04.2024 to the Additional Director, Office of Geologist & Mining Department, Gandhinagar; however, no decision has been taken.
3. Heard Mr. Nirav Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
4. The captioned writ petition has been filed, seeking directions to the respondent authorities to immediately restrain the private respondents from carrying out any mining operations in respect of the leases belonging to the petitioner and to immediately transfer the operation of online ATR Account etc.
5. It appears from the record, that on 23.05.2019, the office of the Assistant Geologist, Geology & Mining Department has passed an order granting two leases for a period of five years in favour of Vrundavan Metal Suppliers. It is the case of the petitioner firm that the petitioner at the relevant point of time, had executed Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2019 in favour of respondent no.6. Subsequently, for the smooth functioning of lease, the petitioner Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:50:20 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9177/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024 undefined was suggested by the respondent no.6 that a partnership deed be executed, facilitating administration of the lease properly. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was made to sign the partnership deed. Allegation is made by the petitioner that the respondent had also made the petitioner to sign another document under the guise that there was some modification needed in the partnership deed and the petitioner has signed it.
6. It is the grievance raised by the petitioner that upon returning India, the petitioner came to know that there has been illegal mining cases filed. The authorities were approached, bringing it to their notice about the mischief committed by the private respondent. The petitioner, was also required to remain present, followed by revocation of the Power of Attorney, somewhere in the month of January, 2024. Various criminal proceedings stated to have been initiated, against the private respondents under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 as well as the for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the private respondents by inducting them as the partner of the proprietorship firm, namely, Vrundavan Metal Suppliers have committed systematic fraud. Not only that it is also allegation of the petitioner that they have procured the GST numbers. With this, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
8. Notably, apropos the complaint filed, the Assistant Geologist (In-charge) Geology & Mining Department, has addressed a communication dated 04.01.2024 to the petitioner, informing and instructing it that in view of the disputes raised, the mining activities may be stopped. The matter appears to have been referred to the Gandhinagar Head Office. Subsequently, another communication dated 15.03.2024, has been issued by the Additional Director, Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:50:20 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9177/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024 undefined Geology & Mining Department, inter alia, stating that the lease has been sanctioned in the name of Vrundavan Metal Suppliers, and that there are no provisions under the Rules of 2017, to decide the rights of the partners. Also, the document has been produced whereby, Shri Rasikbhai Rupara has waived his right. The authorities was of the opinion that internal changes which took place have been informed to the office from time to time and therefore, no further steps are required to be taken under Rule 45 of the Rules of 2017.
9. Clearly, there appears to be dispute between the partners of the partnership firm, i.e. the petitioner on one hand and private respondent nos. 6 and 7 on the other. Allegations have been made of forging of the documents etc. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the private respondents, the remedy available to the petitioners, is not to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Except stating that on the basis of the fraudulent documents, the respondents have tried to take advantage and got the lease executed in their favour, nothing has been pointed out as to which of the legal rights of the petitioner have been abridged by the respondent authorities. It is by now well settled for seeking mandamus, there has to be a legal right in favour of the party and corresponding duties on the part of the respondent authorities, to perform the same.
11. In absence of any infraction pointed out, much less of any provisions of the Rules of 2017, the captioned writ petition does not deserve to be entertained and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Radhika Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:50:20 IST 2024