Sahyog Minerals 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 :-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit and Allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities specifically Respondent Collector and the Geologist to decide the grievance

of the petitioner made vide application dated 20.11.2017 for considering of the grace period as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities in not creating any hindrances and permitting the petitioner to carry out his

mining activities at the quarry lease which has been granted to the petitioner till his application dated 20.11.2017 (at Annexure-C) is not decided finally

by the respondent authorities which is for consideration of grace period as granted to him vide order dated 04.07.2016 (at Annexure-A) in any manner

whatsoever :-

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not deciding the

grievance raised by the petitioner for grant of grace period vide his application dated 20.11.2017 is illegal, arbitrary, against the settled principles of

law, tantamount to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and is also contrary to

the directions passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 04.07.2016 (at Annexure-A) and therefore the respondent authorities are duty bound

to consider the application made by the petitioner and the grievance raised therein for consideration of grace period vide his application dated

20.11.2017 (at Annexure-C) as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks;

(E) During the pendency, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to expeditiously

decide the application made by the petitioner herein dated 20.11.2017 and also be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from creating any

hindrances in the mining activities carried out by the petitioner for which the quarry lease has been granted to the petitioner in any manner

whatsoever;

(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ex parte interim relief in terms of prayer (E).

(G) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deem fit in the interest of justice.â€​

During the course of submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra appearing for the petitioner has raised a grievance that though there is a clear

indication given in the order passed by the authority on 04.07.2016 indicating that the grace period will have to be considered as indicated in the

operative part of the order reflecting on page 24/U, while passing the consequential order on 12.07.2017 reflecting on page 25, the said period has not

been considered. As a result of this, the petitioner was left with no other alternate and raised a grievance by way of preferring a specific application

on 20.11.2017, but so far, despite repeated representations and requests, the same has not been considered, which has constrained the petitioner to

approach this Court by way of preferring the present petition.

Learned advocate Mr. Mishra, as such, has limited his submission at this stage to the effect that at least, that application which has been submitted

on 20.11.2017 be directed to be decided after considering the effect of the orders as indicated above as expeditiously as possible within some time

bound schedule which this Court may prescribe and has not submitted any further.

To this submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi appearing on behalf of the respondent authority on advance copy has

submitted that if the application is directed to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law within a stipulated time, the authority will abide by

the said direction and shall take an appropriate decision and hence, has requested the Court to dispose of the petition upon some suitable directions.

Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has also requested the Court to issue some direction so as to see that expeditiously, the authority shall consider the

grievance. Hence, in view of this limited submission, the present petition is ordered to be disposed of upon request of both the learned advocates on

following lines which would meet the ends of justice :-

5.1 The petitioner is permitted to approach the authority within a period of 10 days from today with a suitable request to the authority to decide the

pending application dated 20.11.2017 at the earliest on its own merits.

5.2 As and when such application is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider the said application and

shall decide the application dated 20.11.2017, if so far has not been decided, on its own merits and in accordance with law at the earliest and

preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court coupled with the present order passed by this Court.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and it is independently left open for the authority to take an appropriate

decision on pending application dated 20.11.2017.

With the above observation and direction, the petition is disposed of with no order as to the cost.

Direct service is permitted.