DHARMESHBHAI NIRANJANBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of renewal of mining lease for excavating sand in favour of resopondent no.4. It is submitted that the mining lease for one year was to expire on 26.1.86 and 90 days prior to the date of expiry no application for renewal was made and therefore the land was available to any one who wanted to have the land on lease for mining. It is therefore submitted that the renewal granted by the Collector in the year 1989 for a period of three years from 1987 to 1990 is illegal.

(2.) During the pendency of this petition it was stated that a Revision Application was preferred to the Government and the same was pending and therefore by interim order the State Government was directed to decide the Revision Application and the Government has decided the same by its order dated 10.8.92 a copy of which has been placed on record.

(3.) The main ground of attack is that the renewal application not having been made in the prescribed form within 90 days prior to the expiry of lease the renewal is illegal. It is true that prior to the expiry of lease the application for renewal was not made. However 10 days prior to the expiry of lease the lease was cancelled on the ground of default in payment of Government fees. The matter was carried in appeal to the higher authorities and ultimately the order cancelling the lease was set aside and it was directed that the lease be renewed. Application for renewal was made and accordingly the same was granted. It is true that the application for renewal was not made before the expiry of the lease but in view of the fact that the lease was cancelled before the expiry of lease untill the order of cancellation is set aside the question of renewal would not arise. Since the respondent no. 4 had challenged the order of cancellation of the least and has succeeded he must be given an opportunity for applying for renewal of the lease. Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 provides for renewal of lease. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 18 provides for making application for renewal of quarry lease atleast 90 days before the expiry of the lease. Proviso to the said sub-rule gives discretion to the authority to entertain such application even after the expiry period of 90 days if the applicant satisfies the competent officer that he had sufficient casue for not presenting such application within that prescribed period. In the present case the lease was cancelled before the period of its expiry and therefore he could not apply for renewal and he challenged the order of cancellation and the same has been ultimately set aside. In the circumstances the respondent no. 4 is entitled to have this period condoned and was entitled to have his application being considered and on such consideration it has been granted and the lease was renewed. In the circumstances there is no infirmity in the order of renewal of lease. Since this is not a question of granting fresh lease the procedure for granting fresh lease would not arise. Hence this petition is leable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.