Manojbhai Mangabhai OAD vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

“7. A. This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. This Honourable Court be pleased to quash and set aside the inaction and failure of the Deputy Secretary (Revision) Industries and Mines

Department, State of Gujarat, in deciding the Revision application No.R-355/2017 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2017 of the

Collector, Navsari rejecting the application for grant of Mining lease to the petitioner with respect to the land situated opposite Survey No.684

admeasuring 0-44-00 Hectors, on the riverbed of Ambika river situated in village â€" Devsar, Taluka â€" Gandevi, District-Navsari and in turn be

pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to forthwith decide the revision application which would meet the interest of justice.

C. Pending, admission and final hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Deputy Secretary

(Revision) Industries and Mines Department, State of Gujarat, in decide the revision application No.R-355/2017 filed by the petitioner, which is

pending before it since the year 2017.

D. Be pleased to pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

E Be pleased to award cost of this petition from the respondents.â€​

During the course of submission, the learned advocate Mr.Anirudh Suchak for learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has offered a limited submission that a Revision Application in substantive form is already submitted before the respondent No.2-authority

but the same has so far not been examined nor any decision is taken and as such, the essential grievance, which is at this stage is that some

appropriate direction be issued to decide Revision Application at the earliest.

In view of this limited submission made by the learned counsel, the learned AGP Mr.Bhargav Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent-

authority on advance copy has taken the instruction and submitted to the Court that appropriate decision will be taken on Revision Application but on

account of this pandemic situation since the administration, to some extent, has been effected, some reasonable time be given to the authority to

examine and take appropriate decision in pending Revision Application and has requested that since the decision is to be taken by the authority at this

stage, the Honourable Court may not express any opinion on merit with regard to any of the submission mentioned in the petition.

In view of the aforesaid limited submission having been made and the Court is not called upon to examine the merit or demerit of the case of the

petitioner in any form, the present petition upon request deserves to be disposed of on following line, which would meet the ends of justice:

[1] The petitioner is permitted to make a specific representation within a period of 10 days from today for requesting respondent No.2-authority to

take up Revision Application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 at the earliest.

[2] Upon such request being made by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.2 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner

and make an endeavor to examine and decide the Revision Application on its own merit, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within

a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of request of the petitioner.

[3] It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to the stand taken in the petition.

[4] It is independently left it open for the respondent-authority to decide Revision Application strictly in accordance with law after examining relevant

materials produced before it.

With these observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as not pressed.

Direct service is permitted.