Remanded

Dilipkumar Kailashkumar Agrawal v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC23 Aug 2019SCA/5071/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a refusal to renew a mining lease because the government's rejection relied solely on the disputed status of an Eco Sensitive Zone. The court remands the matter to the Revisional Authority to determine the factual accuracy of the lease area's location relative to the sanctuary.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands disposed of and the matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority to decide within three months after verifying the Eco Sensitive Zone status.

Dilipkumar Kailashkumar Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat — Environment and Pollution | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/5071/2016 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5071 of 2016

¶4

================================================================ DILIPKUMAR KAILASHKUMAR AGRAWAL

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. STUTI Y JANI(6742) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶12

Date : 23/08/2019 ORAL ORDER

¶13

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Mines and Minerals Department, State of Gujarat. The issue pertains to refusal of renewal of mining lease of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the main ground for rejecting the renewal was that the mining area was falling within the ten kilometers radius of the Wild Life Sanctuary and therefore no mining activity is being permitted, the renewal was refused.

¶15

Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that several other mining lease for excavation of the marble has been granted in the same taluka. It is also submitted that in a specific case of one Mulchand Agrawal, who was carrying out

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

C/SCA/5071/2016 ORDER

¶18

the quarry lease activity adjacent to the petitioner, his case has been remanded back to the Collector and the same is still pending whereas, the revision was rejected.

¶19

It is further submitted that the petitioner having sought information under the Right to Information Act has been informed by the Forest Department that there is no declaration of Balaram- Ambaji Wild Life Sanctuary as Eco Sensitive Zone and therefore the ground for rejecting the revision is not well founded. He also submitted that the rejection was also on the ground of non receiving of environmental clearance.

¶20

Learned AGP opposes the grant of the petition firstly submitting that in case of Mulchand Agrawal the proceedings are still pending and awaited for the opinion from the Forest Department and in fact no mining activity has been therefore permitted.

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents on record. The issue pertains to the grant of mining lease of ordinary sand, which the petitioner was granted in the year 2005, initially for the period of three years and thereafter the application was made by the petitioner for renewal which was within the period of limitation prescribed and when such application was rejected, a revision was filed

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

C/SCA/5071/2016 ORDER

¶24

belatedly. The Revisional authority had condoned the delay and considered the revision on merits however, dismissed the same on the ground that the mining lease is falling within the ten kilometers radius of Eco Sensitive Zone of a Wild Life Sanctuary. The Court finds that the impugned order is passed on 16.12.2015 whereas the Right to Information communication relied upon by the petitioner is of the date 23.02.2016. Therefore obviously after passing of the impugned order, the information given under the Right to Information by the Forest Department, Banaskantha is to the effect that Balaram- Ambaji Wild Life Sanctuary has not declared Eco Sensitive Zone, which is in operation or granted sanction. It was also informed the area surrounding BalaramAmbaji Wild Life Sanctuary to be declared as Eco Sensitive Zone is also not in implementation or sanctioned.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, as the decision is based primarily on the ground of being located in the Eco Sensitive Zone, the Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Revisional Authority, so as to consider afresh the factual situation as to whether as on date the area which is covering the mining lease area is falling within the radius of ten kilometers and or within the Eco Sensitive Zone surrounding any Wild Life Sanctuary.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

C/SCA/5071/2016 ORDER

¶28

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. The decision be taken in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. An opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner.

¶29

Direct service is permitted.

¶30

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶31

URIL RANA

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Dilipkumar Kailashkumar Agrawal v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilipkumar Kailashkumar Agrawal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makwana Narendrabhai Dhanabhai Vs Union of India

Gopi Dhirajlal Manvar Vs Sub Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Dept.

Bhavik Jagdishbhai Kotecha Vs State of Gujarat

Suresh Anantray Goswami Thru. Friend Shaileshsinh Maharajsinh Kushwah Vs the Commissioner of Police

Bharatbhai Boghabhai Dasa Vs State of Gujarat

Malik Mohamad Rasidkhan Jainkhan Vs State of Gujarat