NOOR MAHMAD ISHAK HINGORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for bentonite mineral pursuant to the application in survey No.109 paiki admeasuring hector 2/67/9 Are mt. and the lease agreement dtd. 13/6/2018 executed for the same. Notice came to be issued to the petitioner herein on 6/10/2022 pursuant to the inspection, which was carried out by the respondent authority on 2/2/2023, stating that during the site inspection, one pit A indicated that there was excavation of mineral to the tune of 63089.61 metric ton and there was one pile of bentonite mineral where it was stored and pile B, on being measured, indicated that 2343.29 metric ton bentonite was stored in the pile and there were about 25 such piles/stacks and each pile/stack had about 20 metric ton mineral stored and thus, about 500 metric ton was stored in pile C. It was averred in the said notice that deducting 2843.29 metric ton from 63089.61 metric ton of excavation, the remaining 60,246.32 metric ton bentonite was exported, whereas tallying it with figures till December, 2021, export of 46,600 metric ton was recorded and thus, export of 13,646 metric tone of bentonite was alleged to be exported illegally. Therefore, for the alleged breach of Rule 3, 5 and 10 of the Gujarat Mining (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, penalty of at the rate of Rs.440.00 metric ton and 21% as compensation for environmental damage was proposed and hearing was scheduled on 18/10/2022.

(3.) Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the online ATR account of the petitioner came to be locked by the respondent authority, is in violation of Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Mining (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the online ATR account of the petitioner, which is locked by the respondent authority, be directed to be reopened.