RAJABHAI JETHABHAI VISANA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Brief facts of the case can be stated as under :

3.1 The petitioner made an application on 19.07.2008 for grant of quarry lease for building lime stone in Survey No.52/4/1p admeasuring 00.68.79 Hector situated at village: Balej, Taluka District: Porbandar.

3.2 The Collector, by order dated 18.05.2009, dismissed the said application on the ground that there is another pending application for the lease for the said area by Reliance Cement and Infra Pvt. Ltd.

3.3 That against the said order dated 18.05.2009, the petitioner filed an Appeal No.662 of 2009 before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed by order dated

20.12.2012 passed by Additional Director (Appeal), Geology and Mining Department.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that therefore, the petitioner approached to the revisional authority by filing Revision Application No.73/R-194. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 14.06.2016, allowed the Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Collector and Appellate authority and further directed the C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 Collector to execute an agreement of lease.

3.5 It is the case of the petitioner that as the area of the quarry lease was less than 01.00.00 Hector, the Geologist, Porbandar made proposal to the Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Gandhinagar (as per Circular dated

06.11.2018) of seeking prior approval of the Commissioner and to pass an order of grant of lease, by communication dated 18.05.2019. Along with the said communication, one checklist was also annexed which attached the details regarding positive reports/ opinion from the different authorities.

3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that vide communication dated 01.06.2022, the Section officer, Industries and Mines Department sought certain area as the clarification from the Geologist, Porbandar in respect of overlapping of the application from other 3 persons were pending for the same area.

3.7 Vide communication dated 21.06.2022, the Geologist, Porbandar clarified the said question of overlapping of area by stating that there is no overlapping, by further stating that the petitioner is entitled to get 0.60.00 Hector area against the demanded area of 0.68.79 Hector.

3.8 Despite the fact that all the queries raised by the State Government from the office of the Geologist, Porbandar are satisfied way back on 21.6.2022, the authorities have not passed any order in compliance with the order dated C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025

14.6.2016 passed by the revisional authority and thereby, being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner had to approach this Court.

3.9 During the pendency of this petition, an order dated

3.3.2025 has been passed by the State Government whereby, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that in the identical case of Amadbhai Ismailbhai Jethwa, the query lease was rejected for the Survey No.108 of Village Damasa, Taluka – Una, District – Gir Somnath.

#4. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs.

#5. Heard Ms.Kruti M. Shah learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Mayank Chavda learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

#6. At the request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage.

#7. Hence, Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Mayank Chavda learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

#8. Ms.Kruti M. Shah, in support of her case, made the following submissions : (1) Ms.Shah submitted that the revisional authority vide order dated 14.6.2016 already directed the authorities to C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 execute the lease deed in favour of petitioner. Ms.Shah further submitted that pursuant to the said direction, the State Government and its authorities have exchanged various communications and raised queries and those queries are already satisfied long back. However, according to Ms.Shah, a decision was not taken with regard to execution of the lease deed in favour of petitioner despite the clear direction given by the revisional authority. Ms.Shah thereafter submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the order dated 3.3.2025 came to be passed whereby, the application of the petitioner was rejected, without giving any opportunity of hearing and/or without giving any notice in advance. Under the circumstances, Ms.Shah submitted that the impugned order dated 3.3.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the direction to implement the order dated 14.6.2016 deserves to be issued to the State authorities. (2) Ms.Shah submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 3.3.2025, not only the opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner but the said order is passed without assigning any cogent reasons and the reason which is assigned is completely of a different village of different district and survey number. Ms.Shah further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the authorities have completely failed to appreciate the fact that for the same land in question and similarly situated person as that of the petitioner, the State Government has already passed an order and executed the lease deed in favour of candidate vide various orders, viz., (i) Merubhai Lakhmanbhai Kachhada vide order dated 7.5.2021 (ii) Shaileshbhai Karshanbhai Baleja C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 vide order dated 7.5.2021 (iii) Alabhai Sarmanbhai Ulwa vide order dated 7.5.2021 (iv) Mulubhai Galabhai Ulwa vide order dated 7.5.2021and (v) Dharamnathji Shaileshbhai Rajnath vide order dated 23.2.2021. Ms.Shah, therefore, submitted that declining the request of the petitioner ignoring the aforesaid orders, is nothing but a discriminatory treatment given to the petitioner and thereby, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8.1 By making above submissions, Ms.Shah urged this Court to allow the present petition.

#9. Per contra, Mr.Mayank Chavda learned Assistant Government Pleader, while opposing the present petition, has made the following submissions : (1) Mr.Mayank Chavda learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the impugned order passed by the authority is perfectly justified and thereby, same may not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (2) Mr.Chavda further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the case of one another candidate, viz., Amadbhai Ismailbhai Jethwa was considered and thereby, on such identical line, the case of the petitioner was declined and thereby, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by the respondent authority while passing the impugned order. He, therefor, urged to dismiss the present petition. C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 (3) Mr.Chavda, however, could not dispute the fact that while passing the impugned order dated 3.3.2025, there was no notice given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided. Mr.Chavda could not dispute the fact that many orders passed in case of other identically situated persons on the same survey number of land and of the same village.

9.1 By making above submissions, Mr.Chavda urged this Court to dismiss the present petition.

#10. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material produced on record, the following facts deserve to be taken note of : (i) The case of the petitioner was considered by the revisional authority and vide order dated 14.6.2016, the direction was issued in favour of petitioner. (ii) After the aforesaid order passed by the revisional authority, in compliance thereof, the queries those were raised are satisfied in favour of petitioner. (iii) In case of identically situated persons of the same village and same survey number, viz., (i) Merubhai Lakhmanbhai Kachhada vide order dated 7.5.2021 (ii) Shaileshbhai Karshanbhai Baleja vide order datd 7.5.2021 (iii) Alabhai Sarmanbhai Ulwa vide order dated 7.5.2021 (iv) Mulubhai Galabhai Ulwa vide order dated 7.5.2021 and (v) C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 Dharamnathji Shaileshbhai Rajnath, the orders were passed and the lease deeds were granted for the mining purpose. (iv) The case which sought to be relied upon of Amadbhai Ismailbhai Jethwa while passing the impugned order dated

3.3.2025, admittedly, pertains to altogether different land survey number, village and district. (v) Admittedly, while passing the impugned order date

3.3.2025, there was no notice issued upon the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted.

#11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion, the order dated 3.3.2025 cannot be said within the four corners of law. I say so because while passing the order dated 3.3.2025, firstly, there is a complete violation of the principles of natural justice as admittedly, no notice and hearing was offered to the petitioner. Secondly, the case of Amadbhai Ismailbhai Jethwa sought to be relied upon while passing the order dated 3.3.2025, also pertains to a different land of different village from a different district. More so, by ignoring the instances of the cases which were considered of a different persons on same land of same village. Therefore, the order impugned is also result of sheer non-application of mind and lastly, while passing the impugned order, earlier order dated 14.6.2016 passed by the revisional authority appears to have been completely overlooked. Thus, on all the counts, the impugned order dated 3.3.2025 cannot be said to be legally tenable in the eye of law and thereby, deserves to be quashed and set aside. C/SCA/18159/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025

#12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 3.3.2025 is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the State authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in line of order dated 14.6.2016, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also keeping in mind the order dated 7.5.2021 and 23.2.2021 passed in case of similarly situated persons, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In view of order passed in main matter, Civil Application No.2 of 2025 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. V.J. SATWARA (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.