(1.) The intra-court appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 30/9/2022 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby a direction has been given to consider the application for renewal of quarry lease of the petitioner as 'saved case' and to decide the same by the Collector within the time given therein. The learned single Judge has opined that the case of the petitioner has to be considered as a 'saved case' as the order in revision dtd. 19/6/2014 was passed in favour of the petitioner, but it was not acted upon by the respondent authorities during the time when 2017 Rules namely Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (in short as the 'Rules 2017') replaced the earlier Rules namely Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010. It is noted by the learned single Judge that it was not the fault of the petitioner that the petitioner could not submit an environment clearance certificate in time.
(2.) A brief narration of facts relevant to decide the controversy are necessary to be noted at the inception. The respondent herein namely the original petitioner was granted quarry lease of ordinary sand vide agreement dtd. 23/4/2007 for a period of three years. When the lease was about to expire on 24/4/2010, an application was made by the petitioner for the purpose of extnsion of the order, which was rejected by the Collector vide order dtd. 15/9/2010 on the ground that the said application was made after a delay of 178 days and was in complete violation of the then existing rules. The original petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector dtd. 15/9/2010, which was allowed by the order dtd. 7/7/2012 and the matter was remanded back while quashing the order of the Collector, for fresh consideration. Again vide order dtd. 22/7/2013, the District Collector rejected the application of the petitioner, which gave rise to the Revision Application filed by the original petitioner before the Secretary, Mining Department. The Revisional Authority vide order dtd. 19/6/2014 condoned the delay of 178 days and directed that the proceedings for renewal of quarry lease be initiated. However, the fact remains that the quarry lease could not be granted to the petitioner despite various communications between the authorities, and in the meantime, 2017 Rules came into force.
(3.) It is brought on the record of the writ petition that in the interregnum after passing of the order dtd. 19/6/2014 by the Revisional Authority, the Geologist had intimated, on 9/12/2015, to the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.5000.00 and to submit environmental clearance certificate and mining plan for further process. Certain clarification was also sought by the Collector about the order dtd. 19/6/2014 passed by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner presented mining plan in the office of Geologist after payment of Rs.5000.00 as penalty. Vide communication dtd. 22/9/2016, the petitioner was asked to give the bank guarantee as well as cure the defects in respect of the mining plan. The defects were removed whereafter the mining plan was approved by the Geologist vide order dtd. 4/3/2017 which was communicated to the original petitioner. On 5/4/2016, the petitioner had applied online for grant of environment clearance certificate.