A single judge bench of the Justice Biren Vaishnav of Gujarat HC has set aside the writ petition filed against the process of entertaining applications underwent a change of pending applications and made ineligible under the amended rules.
Facts:
The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner had applied for mining lease for the land in question. The application was rejected initially in the first round on 05.08.2013. On a challenge made before the appropriate authority, the proceedings were remanded before the authorities to decide the same afresh. On remand, while the proceedings remanded were pending before the authorities, in the interregnum, new rules known as Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, by way of notification dated 24.05.2017 came into force. The Revisional Authority by an order dated 30.03.2016, set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter to decide the same afresh.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite an order of remand on 30.03.2016, the impugned order rejecting the request by virtue of operation of Rule 29 is misconceived inasmuch as, purely as a result of delay on deciding the same at the hands of the authorities, no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The court after perusal of the affidavit filed by the opposite party is of the opinion that the application for leasehold rights for mining was rejected in August 2013, aggrieved by which, a revision was filed which was decided on 30.03.2016. On 07.07.2016, the Assistant Geologist, Botad, has requested the petitioner to provide environmental clearance so that the application for lease be proceeded in accordance with the order in remand. That application was not responded to by the petitioner. In the interregnum, therefore, on coming into force of the Gujarat Mines and Mineral Concession Rules with effect from 2017, the process of entertaining applications underwent a change of pending applications (existing) was said to be rejected. They held that the fault cannot be found with the respondent authorities if by virtue of operation of the amended rules, the applications of the petitioners have been treated as ineligible as the same were made prior to the date of commencement of 2017 Rules.
Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed as no fault can be construed on respondent for ineligibility of petitioner’s application by virtue of amended rules.
Case: HARIBHAI LAKHMANBHAI BHEDA SON OF SH. LAKHMANBHAI BHEDA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18009 of 2019
Coram: Justice Biren Vaishnav
Dated: 08.11.2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments