Allowed

Devendrasingh Navalsingh Ratnavat v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Feb 2019SCA/1434/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed an order cancelling a quarry lease as it was passed ex parte without proper notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, remitting the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.01.2018 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent to decide afresh after issuing a fresh notice and providing an opportunity of hearing.

Devendrasingh Navalsingh Ratnavat Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/1434/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1434 of 2019

¶4

=======================================================

¶5

DEVENDRASINGH NAVALSINGH RATNAVAT

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

=======================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR ASMITA PATEL AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1  3

¶11

=======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 11/02/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by respondent no.3, whereby the lease of the petitioner is cancelled.

¶16

2. Heard learned advocate, Chirayu Mehta for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondents.

¶17

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted an application for quarry lease for granite on the land bearing survey no.26/1 paiki paiki paiki/paiki8 at Idar, Taluka : Idar, District : Sabarkantha. The said application was granted and the petitioner entered into an agreement with the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

C/SCA/1434/2019 ORDER

¶20

Collector, Sabarkantha for quarry lease for a
period of 20 years and in pursuance thereto, the
said document was executed . It is submitted that

¶21

the case of the respondent no.3 is that the
petitioner has violated certain conditions of the
agreement and therefore notice dated 06.01.2018
came to be issued to the petitioner. However, it
is specifically contended by the learned advocate

¶22

that the said notice was not received by the
petitioner. Respondent no.3 has therefore passed
the impugned order without giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner by which the lease of
the petitioner is cancelled. It is further

¶23

submitted that the deficiencies/alleged violation
of the terms of the agreement are technical in
nature. In fact, the petitioner has rectified such
deficiencies. However, when the notice issued by

¶24

the respondent no.3 was not served to the

¶25

petitioner, the petitioner could not point out the
aforesaid aspects to the respondent no.3. He,
therefore, urged that the impugned order be
quashed and set aside.

¶26

4.On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, Ms. Asmita Patel is not in a position to

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

C/SCA/1434/2019 ORDER

¶29

dispute the fact that the notice dated 06.01.2018
issued by respondent no.3 was not duly served to
the petitioner.

¶30

5.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case, the impugned order dated 22.01.2018
is quashed and set aside mainly on the ground that
reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to
the petitioner and the impugned order came to be
passed exparte. Thus, on this limited ground, the
impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the respondent no.3 for deciding
the issue afresh. The respondent no.3 shall issue
fresh notice to the petitioner and give reasonable

¶31

opportunity of hearing. It is open for the
petitioner to point out the fact that he has
already rectified the alleged deficiencies. The
respondent no.3 shall consider the reply and
thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance
with law.

¶32

6. With the above observation and direction, this petition is disposed off. Direct service is permitted.

¶33

Gautam

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Devendrasingh Navalsingh Ratnavat v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendrasingh Navalsingh Ratnavat v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmar Velabhai Karamsibhai Vs State of Gujarat

Govind Rameshchandra Paragi Vs State of Gujarat

Jaydeep Dinesh Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Kahurabhai @ Kuvrabhai Sakabhai Vanzara Vs State of Gujarat

Hanif @ Anishbhai Rehmanbhai Mugal (Patni) Vs State of Gujarat

Idar Stones and Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat