Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai ODE vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :Â​

“(A) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO quash and set aside the order dated 02/12/2020 passed by Respondent No.2 â€

Collector  Anand in order No. AGA/QL/325/REVISION/REJECTED/1509 and thereby allow the quarry lease application dated 07/08/2012 for the

available area of grant of quarry lease in the interest of justice.

(B) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO to grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.â€​

At a time when the matter was being heard, learned advocate Mr. R. K. Mansuri for the petitioner fairly conceded that there is a remedy available

of preferring the revision application against the impugned order, but only with a view to see that since the opportunity of hearing was not given, the

present petition is filed. However, after arguing for some time, learned advocate Mr. Mansuri has requested the Court to permit the petitioner to file

the revision application before the competent authority against the impugned order and has also expressed an apprehension that such revision

application even if will be filed, will not be taken up for hearing for a pretty long period. As such, learned advocate Mr. Mansuri has also requested the

Court that without expressing any opinion on merits, the revision application which may be filed by the petitioner be directed to be expeditiously dealt

with by the revisional authority in accordance with law and hence, has restricted his submission without suggesting any other issue on merit.

In view of this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bhargav Pandya appearing on advance copy has no reservation if the petition is

disposed of with some suitable directions upon the authority as well.

In view of above submissions, the present petition is disposed of with following lines which would meet the ends of justice :Â​

4.1 The petitioner is permitted to file the revision application before the competent authority against the impugned order.

4.2 As and when such revision application is filed by the petitioner, the revisional authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law

on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with regard to any of the contentions contained in the petition as not called upon and hence, it is

independently left open for the revisional authority to examine the revision application strictly in accordance with law on its own merits.

With the above observations and direction, the present petition stands disposed of as not pressed.

Direct service is permitted.