VANTHALI NAGAR PALIKA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Municipality by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Respondent no.1 as also the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Respondent no.3, and further prayed to direct the respondents not to grant lease to any person in the command area of river Ozat.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the management of the petitioner Municipality is carried out by the duly elected body constituted under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Rules. The respondent no.6 had applied on 28.06.2010 for granting of sand lease in respect of the Block Nos.6 to 18 ameasuring about 17 hectors in the Ozat riverbed. The said application was rejected by the Collector, Junagadh vide order dated 30.01.2013. The respondent No.6 being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.01.2013 had preferred Revision Application under Rule 65 of the Gujarat Minor Mining Concession Rules, 2010 before the Respondent No.1. Pending the said Revision Application, the Executive Engineer, Junagadh Irrigation Scheme Department by the letter dated 05.05.2014 opined to the Geologist, Junagadh not to grant lease for excavation of the sand in the check dams/ Irrigation Scheme and Notified Area without no objection certificate obtained from the said office. Vanthali Nagarpalika by the letter dated 14.10.2015 had made representation to the Collector, Junagadh against granting of lease to the respondent No.6. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Scheme, Junagadh also vide the letter dated 15.02.2006 had given report that granting of lease in the riverbed of river Ozat was harmful. However, the respondent no.1 vide the order dated 26.06.2015 allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent no.6 under the said Rules, and quashed and set aside the order dated 30.01.2013, passed by the Collector, Junagadh. The Respondent No.1 further directed the Collector, Junagadh to execute the lease deed in favour of the respondent no.6 as per the observations made in the said order. Accordingly, the respondent Collector passed the order granting quarry lease to the respondent no.6 vide the order dated 05.02.2016, subject to the conditions contained therein. The petitioner Municipality therefore has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order.

(3.) The petition has been resisted by respondent Nos.3 and 6 by filing their respective affidavits in reply. The respondent no.3 has contended inter alia that the respondent no.6 having applied for the lease for sand mining on 28.06.2010 and the new Rules being Gujarat Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2010 having come into force in August, 2010, the said Rules would not be applicable in the case of Respondent No.6. It has been further contended that the petitioner Vanthali Nagarpalika had submitted its 'No Objection Certificate' on 12.08.2015 for grant of lease to the respondent No.6. The Deputy Collector, had also submitted his opinion for grant of lease deed in favour of the respondent no.6 in which the report of Circle Officer, Vanthali and the opinion of Mamlatdar Vanthali were also exhaustively considered. According to this respondent, after considering the positive opinions of all the concerned revenue officials, the respondent had executed the lease deed in view of the order passed by respondent no.1. The Respondent no.6 in his affidavit in reply has challenged the very locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition. It has been further contended that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts more particularly, the fact that in the riverbed of river Ozat, there were about 35 leases granted and no such objection was raised by the petitioner against them. According to this respondent, some of the Councilors of the Petitioner Municipality themselves were engaged in the illegal mining activities and the petition has been filed with a malafide intention.