ARVINDBHAI THAKORBHAI KAYASTH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 - Geologist, Vadodara refusing the renewal quarry lease of the petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted quarry lease by order dated 18.9.2006 by the respondent No.2 in respect of the land admeasuring 10 Hectors in Narmada river bet bearing land Survey No.424 of village Sayar, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara. Lease agreement for the same was executed on 27.11.2006 between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for three years. The petitioner was obliged to apply for renewal of the lease in advance by 180 days. However, because of unavoidable adverse circumstances, the petitioner could make application for renewal of the lease only on 2.7.2010, which was delayed by 241 days. The petitioner could not apply in time because he suffered prolapsed lumbar inter vertebral disc with bilateral radiculopathy with minimal urological deficit. The petitioner was under treatment of Dr. Manish R. Shah, Consultant and Orthopedic Surgeon of Vadodara from 22.5.2009 to 1.7.2010 and thus, he could apply for renewal on 2.7.2010. The respondent No.2 confirmed the factum of receipt of the renewal application under its communication dated 24.1.2011. However, the respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to explain delay in preferring renewal application, which the petitioner explained vide his reply dated 31.1.2011. The respondent No.2, however, rejected the application without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by order dated 10.5.2011, against which the petitioner preferred revision application before the respondent No.1, which was also rejected by order dated 14.6.2013 on the ground of delay. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No.11636 of 2013 before this Court and this Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to decide the application of the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 rejected the renewal application on 21.2.2014 by non -speaking order and in complete disregard of the order dated 20.9.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.11636 of 2013. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order by preferring Special Civil Application No.3682 of 2014, which was allowed by this Court and the order dated 21.2.2014 passed by respondent No.2 was quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and under Rule 17(4) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010 ('the Rules' for short). The petitioner once again submitted oral and written submissions and prayed to condone the delay in making application for renewal of the lease. However, by order dated 25.4.2014, the renewal application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner has thus challenged this order refusing to renew his lease.

(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties.