LAXMANBHAI MANGUBHAI OAD 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 order dated 24.04.2001 passed by the Collector, Navasari, order dated 07.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director (Appeals), Geology and Mining Department and order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Industry and Mines Department, Gandhinagar.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was having the quarry lease under the provisions of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 from the competent authority for the land situated at Village: Manekpore, Taluka: Gandevi, District: Navsari. On 21.12.2000, the petitioner presented an application for renewal of lease in the prescribed form along with necessary fees and relevant documents to the competent authority. On 27.12.2000, the petitioner was informed that there was a delay of 288 days in preferring renewal application and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to explain the reasons for delay. On 05.01.2001, the petitioner made a detailed representation explaining the reason for delay in preferring renewal application. On 24.04.2001, the Collector, Surat passed the impugned order rejecting the renewal application on the ground that there was a delay in preferring the said application. Therefore, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Additional Director of Gelology and Mining Department, Gandhinagar against the decision of the Collector, Navsari. The Additional Director vide order dated 07.12.2002 rejected the Appeal of the petitioner. Against the decision of the Additional Director, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary, Industry and Mines Department, Gandhinagar. The appellate authority vide order dated 14.02.2006 rejected the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner by confirming the order of the Additional Director. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 05.01.2002, the petitioner made a detailed representation explaining the reason for delay in preferring the renewal application, wherein it was stated that in the year 1997 also the renewal application of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.07.1998. He further submitted that explanation tendered was that pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, the renewal agreement was executed on 03.05.1999. In the said representation, it is stated that since the renewal agreement was executed on 03.05.1999, the petitioner was under bonafide impression that the period of three years of lease would be expiring on 02.05.2002 and therefore, according to the petitioner, the said application for renewal was within the prescribed period of limitation.