AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The present Petition prays for setting aside the order/communication dated 19.07.2023 by the Desk Officer, Revenue and Forest Department, as also the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the State in the Review Petition. It alternatively prays for a direction to the State to decide the Review Petition dated 15.10.2023 afresh in accordance with law, and more particularly as per circular dated 07.12.2020.
The facts which are more or less undisputed are stated as under:
The Petitioner, which is a registered partnership firm, submitted an application on 12.02.2012 to the Additional Collector, Gondia, seeking grant of a mining lease for Quartz/Quartzite over Khasra No. 3, Mouja Sawali, Tehsil Deori, District Gondia, admeasuring 7.00 Hectares. Acting on the said application, the Collector, Gondia recommended the Petitioner's proposal to the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Thereafter, the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 came into force on 18.07.2013, replacing the earlier Rules. A Gazette Notification was issued, classifying additional minerals including Quartz as minor minerals on 10.02.2015. In pursuance to the changed circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 sought revised recommendation from the Director, Geological and Mining Department regarding the application of the Petitioner. On 09.01.2018, the Petitioner submitted a fresh representation requesting the grant of a quarry lease over the same land.
Rule 9 of the said Rules of 2013 came to be amended, and the amendment came into force on 12.01.2018. The said amendment pertained to the introduction of public auction as a mode for the grant of a quarry lease on private land. The Additional Collector, Gondia, forwarded the proposal to the State Government for consideration.
Thereafter, on 07.12.2020, a Government Circular was issued by the State clarifying that applications pending prior to 12.01.2018 i.e., before the amendment to Rule 9 came into force may be considered, without adopting the process of public auction. In the backdrop of these facts, on 15.10.2023, the Respondent No. 1 State rejected the Petitioner's application without granting opportunity of hearing.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Review Petition under Rule 84, challenging the rejection and basically relying on the circular dated 07.12.2020. On 15.10.2025, Respondent No. 1 rejected the said Review Application, holding that lease can only be granted through public auction after amendment dated 12.01.2018. It is the rejection of the proposal and the Review Application which is impugned in the present Petition on the grounds stated therein.
I have heard Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent/State. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is in contravention to the circular of the State issued on 07.12.2020. He submits that the first application of the Petitioner was dated 12.02.2012, followed by application dated 09.01.2018. Both were prior to the date of amending Rule 9, which is on 12.01.2018, and therefore, the action is in contravention of the said circular. He therefore submits that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. She submits that the Respondents have correctly stated that the only mode of disposing of the mining applications is by way of public auction. She places reliance on Rule 9 as amended.
I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, and have also gone through the record. The fact that the application was made by the Petitioner on 12.02.2012, which was recommended on 09.07.2012, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that another application was made on 09.01.2018. It is also not in dispute that the Rules were amended on 12.01.2018, by which the concept of public auction was introduced. In the light of the facts stated above, the circular dated 07.12.2020 assumes significance. The said circular issues various directions and specifically states that those applications which are received prior to the date i.e. 12.01.2018 and if all compliances regarding the said have been done, those applications will have to be placed before the State Government for a decision thereon. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the order of rejecting the proposal and the review order does not take into consideration the circular dated 07.12.2020. It would be therefore in the fitness of things to remand the matter to the State Government, i.e. the Respondent No. 1 herein, to decide it afresh. In that view of the matter, following order is passed:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated order/communication dated 19.07.2023 by the Desk Officer, Revenue and Forest Department, as also, order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the State in a Review Petition No. xks[kfu 50v@0425@iz-dz-138@[k&2 at Annexure-J, are quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in light of the circular dated 07.12.2020.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition is disposed of.