SHAH MINERALS BHUJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been running a proprietary business at Bhuj in Kutch district. Between January 1975 and July 1975 he made as many as eight applications to the Collector of Kutch for obtaining a mining lease or a quarry lease for winning renitent which is a minor mineral. The area in respect of which he made applications was Lakhpat Taluka in Kutch District. Until 14/08/1975 the petitioners applications were not processed and disposed of. According to the petitioner if the Collector old disposal of his applications prior to 14/08/1975 they would have been granted under the order of priority incorporated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966. On 14/08/1975 the State Government issued notification under which areas bearing Bentonite in Kutch District were reserved for exploration by a public sector undertaking. On 26/08/1975 all application made by the petitioner were rejected because the area in respect if Which he had applied for a mining lease had been reserved by the State Government for exploitation by a State public sector and taking. The petitioner appealed against all those orders to the Director of Geology and Mining. On 11th of January 1976 all appeals were dismissed. He thereupon approached the State Government against those appellate orders and filed revision applications. On or about 30th of November 1978 the State Government dismissed all those applications.

(2.) It is on ground of these facts that .he petitioner filed this petition. On or about 28/06/1978 the State Government issued a press note in which the declared the policy of dereserving areas similar reserved in Kutch district for exploitation of Bentonite. Even through the petitioner pursuant to the declaration of policy of dereservation made applications to the competent authority for obtaining a mining lease in respect of Bentonite in Kutch district he complains that the rejection of his applications made in 1975 has caused damage to him inasmuch as he has lost priority under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 According to him if those applications were not rejected but were kept pending he would have automatically obtained priority amongst the applicants belonging to the last category specified in sub-rule (2) or Rule 9 because sub-rule (2) contemplates so far as the residuary category of applicants is concerned the policy of first come first served given all other things equal.

(3.) In this petition Mr. I. M. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of the petitioner has raised before us as many as five contentions. They are as follows :