Quashed

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

Gujarat HC11 Feb 2019SCA/1437/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat quashed an order cancelling a quarry lease as it was passed ex parte due to non-service of the notice and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, remitting the matter afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.01.2018 is quashed and set aside; the matter is remitted to respond for a fresh decision after service of notice and hearing.

Idar Stones and Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/1437/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1437 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

IDAR STONES AND GRANITES PVT. LTD.

¶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.26/1/1 pk at Idar, Taluka : Idar, District : Sabarkantha. The said application was granted and the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Collector, Sabarkantha for

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

C/SCA/1437/2019 ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

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 the respondent no.3 was not
served to the 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.

¶22

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Asmita Patel is not in a position to dispute the fact that the notice dated 06.01.2018

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/SCA/1437/2019 ORDER

¶25

issued by respondent no.3 was not duly served to
the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

¶30

Gautam

¶31

Page 3 of 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idar Stones and Granites Pvt. Ltd. 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

Devendrasingh Navalsingh Ratnavat Vs State of Gujarat