Dismissed

M/S. Gadre Minerals, through Its Attorney Holder Mr. Partha S. Gadre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2019WP/4015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the termination of a 20-year mining lease. The court found the petitioner suspended operations for years and failed to file monthly returns, justifying the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no reasons to interfere with the termination of the mining lease.

M/S. Gadre Minerals, through Its Attorney… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

28-cwp-4015-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4015 OF 2018

¶3

M/s. Gadre Minerals … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶4

Mr. Pradeep Samant for the Petitioner. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.

¶5

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI, & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 26^th AUGUST, 2019.

¶6

P.C.

¶7

1] The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28^th April

¶8

2011 as well as the appellate order dated 3^rd July 2017.

¶9

2] Brief facts are as under:

¶10

3] The petitioner was granted mining lease by the Government authorities. The lease was for a period of 20 years between 28^th October 1996 till 28^th October 2016. Primarily, on the ground that the petitioner had breached the conditions of lease, after issuance of show-cause notice the lease came to be

1/3

Dinesh Sherla

28-cwp-4015-18.doc

terminated by the impugned order dated 28^th April 2011. According to the petitioner, the show-cause notice was never served on him nor was the said order dated 28^th April 2011 served on him. Only in the year 2013 upon coming to know about passing of such order, he filed a detailed appeal/representation, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 3^rd July 2017. Hence, the petition.

¶15

4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find any reason to interfere. The material on record will suggest that according to the authorities, the petitioner had not carried out any significant mining operation from the year 2002 onwards right till the year 2010-2011. Whatever defence of technical nature

¶16

the petitioner has put up, it would be impossible for the petitioner to get away from this basic fact. The petitioner has also made representation which clearly establishes that in the year 2001-02, the petitioner had suspended the mining operation for long period. In the appeal itself, the petitioner had conveyed that on 12^th February 2011, after preparation of draft for mining scheme, he had showed intention to start regular

2/3

Dinesh Sherla

28-cwp-4015-18.doc

extraction of minerals with effect from 15^th March 2011. In clear terms, therefore, the petitioner had suspended the mining operation for long period. Additionally, we note that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government, it is pointed out that the petitioner had failed to file his monthly returns for the period between April 2004 to March 2010. The affidavit further stated that respondent No.2 wrote letters dated 25^th August 2005, 18^th November 2005, 27^th June 2006, 7^th November 2006, 28^th May 2007, 9^th June 2008, 4^th November 2008, 25^th March 2009 and 18^th July 2009 to the petitioner calling explanation, however, no such explanation was rendered.

¶21

5] The record would thus clearly establish that the petitioner had suspended the mining operation for long period running to several years, monthly returns were also not filed. Under these circumstances, the Petition is dismissed.

¶22

(S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

¶23

3/3

¶24

Dinesh Sherla

M/S. Gadre Minerals, through Its Attorney Holder Mr. Partha S. Gadre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gadre Minerals, through Its Attorney Holder Mr. Partha S. Gadre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

lachmandas bhojraj makhija and Anr. Vs janki bhojraj makhija and 9 Ors. and Mamatalachmandas Makhija and Anr. (Applicant)

Dy. Salt Commissioner and Anr. Vs vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr. and State of Maharashtra (Dept. of Revenue and Forest)(Applicant

deputy salt commissioner and Anr. Vs vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr.

Parviz Farrok Kaka and 3 Ors. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Kedarnath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and 5 Ors. Vs State Minister Urban Development Department and 8 Ors.

Mr. Gurunath v. Pandit and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors.