DAYALBHAI SOMABHAI AHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities of rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of quarry lease for ordinary sand. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the communication/order dated 16.08.2003 passed by Collector, Surat, order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the Additional Director (Appeals), Geology and Mining Department and order dated 23.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Industry and Mines Department.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was having quarry lease under the provisions of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 since 1985 and it was renewed from time to time. In February 1999, the petitioner was granted renewal of the said lease for a period of three years with the understanding that it was the last renewal permissible under the Rules and under these circumstances, the petitioner did not apply renewal of the said lease on expiry of its period in 2002. In October 2002, the petitioner came to know that it is the policy of the Government that even after expiry of the maximum limit of lease permissible under the Rules, if the lease holder is interested, the same can be granted to the lease holder with the permission of the Government. On 29.10.2002, the petitioner presented an application for renewal of lease, however the said application was not accepted by the office of the Collector, Surat orally informing the petitioner that the application is time barred. On 29.10.2002, the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining Department with a request that the said application may be forwarded to the Collector, Surat for doing needful. On 16.08.2003, the Collector, Surat informed the petitioner that nothing is required to be done by him in the matter as the petitioner has not made any application in this regard and the maximum period of 12 years permissible under the Rules for the renewal has also expired in the year 2002. On 15.07.2005, the appellate authority rejected the Appeal of the petitioner. On 23.02.2006, Revision Application of the petitioner also came to be rejected by the competent authority. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the policy was not put to the notice of the petitioner at any point of time by any of the authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to claim renewal of his lease, as per the policy of the Government which the authorities have not granted and thereby the petitioner is arbitrarily discriminated.