Toral Mineral Through Proprietor Dhanrajsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor vs State Of Gujarat

Biren Vaishnav, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mr. N.R. Mehta, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 5.

Heard learned advocates for the parties.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12. 01.2021 passed by the Collector, Bharuch.

The issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by this court on 13.01.2022 by way of Special Civil Application No. 2911 of 2021 and allied matters. The relevant portion of the order dated 13. 01.2022 reads as under:

“13. From the above, it can easily be inferred that the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 is passed without taking into consideration the various circulars of the Central Government and the State Government has failed to take into consideration the reply filed by the writ-applicants dated 29.09.2020 and 01.10.2020. The reply filed by the writ-applicants is not considered in the impugned order and the said order adversely affects the writ-applicants. In view of this Court, the respondent authority has passed the order without taking into consideration the reply of the writ-applicants dated 29.01.2020 and 01.10.2020. It is well within the right of the respondents to know as to how the respondent authority has applied the notification dated 06.01.2011 and 18.01.2019 of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department. The contention of the writ-applicants that the lease area is situated 40 kilometers away from the sea and more than 25 leases are in operation and that the action of stoppage of quarry lease is taken only against the writ-applicants and the writ- applicants are still paying heavy rents and there is no clarity with regard to the area which is acquired by the respondent no.5. The moot question that as to how the writ-applicants are included in stoppage of mining process when the names of the writ applicants do not appear in the public advertisement, which was issued by the competent authority, is absent in the impugned order dated 12.01.2021. In view of this Court, the respondent authority is required to give proper reasoning for the said action with regard to cancellation of lease in view of the notification dated 18.01.2019 of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to direct the authority that the writ-applicants be heard and the principles of natural justice be followed in true spirit.

It is directed that the writ-applicants be heard and the principles of natural justice are required to be followed in the true spirit. The impugned order passed by the respondent authority dated 12.01.2021 is quashed and set-aside. The respondent authority is directed to take into consideration the reply filed by the writ-applicants dated 29.09.2020 and 1. 10.2020 and pass appropriate order and decide the same in accordance with the law. It is clarified that the reasons given by this Court are strictly with regard to adjudication of the present writ-applications. The present matters are remitted back to the respondent authority to decide afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that the writ- applicants have not challenged the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification No.G.S.R.37(E), dtd.18.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, however, it is well within the right of the writ-applicants to know with regard to the action undertaken by the respondent authority more particularly when the reply filed by the writ-applicants sought for information which does not form a part of the impugned order dated 20.01.2021.

In view of the above, the present writ-applications are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the same are disposed of accordingly.”

In view of the above, this petition is also required to be allowed in terms of the order dated 13.01.2022 as above. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent authority dated 12.01.2021 is quashed and set-aside. The respondent authority is directed to take into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order and decide the same in accordance with the law. It is clarified that the reasons given by this Court are strictly with regard to adjudication of the present petition. The present matter is remanded to the respondent authority to decide afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification No.G.S.R.37(E), dtd.18.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, however, it is well within the right of the petitioner to know with regard to the action undertaken by the respondent authority more particularly when the reply filed by the petitioner sought for information which does not form a part of the impugned order. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.