Viramsing Narsungji Vaghela Vs Commissioner Geology and Mining

MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. ABHISHEK A JOSHI(6768) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR AMIT BAROT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶13

Date : 16/10/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by the
respondent No.2-Assistant Geologist, Palanpur,
Banaskantha.

¶16

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶17

2.1.The petitioner applied for quarry lease for
mining river sand under the Gujarat Mineral
Concession Rules, 2010. The petitioner was granted
mining lease by order dated 04.07.2012 (Annexure-B to
the petition). It appears that thereafter, an FIR was
registered on 19.06.2017 against the petitioner for
issuing duplicate royalty passes and using such
duplicate passes for carrying illegal mining lease

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/SCA/9954/2018 ORDER

¶20

into the area alloted to the petitioner. The said FIR
was registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 379, 406, 420, 418, 465, 467, 472 and 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4(1)A and
4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development 7
Regulation) Act, 2010. The proceedings pertaining to
the said FIR is pending before the Competent Court.

¶21

2.2.It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner has paid fine of Rs.1,15,289/- imposed by
the respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.08.2017. The
petitioner was also released on bail by this Court
vide order dated 24.08.2017.

¶22

2.3.The petitioner approached this Court by filing
Special Civil Application No.9874 of 2017, as his
application dated 26.10.2017 was not considered by
the respondents. This Court, thereafter, directed the
respondent No.2, by order dated 07.11.2017, to
consider the representation made by the petitioner.
It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.2-
Assistant Geologist decided the application of the
petitioner and rejected the same by order dated
01.11.2017 as the criminal case is pending against
the petitioner before the competent Court. Being
aggrieved by the said order dated 01.11.2017, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶23

3.Learned advocate Mr.R.B.Thakor for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid the
amount of fine i.e. Rs.1,15,289/-, imposed upon him.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/9954/2018 ORDER

¶26

He further submitted that as the petitioner has paid
the amount of fine and offences were committed by the
person who was employed by the petitioner, the
petitioner is not liable for the offences, for which
the criminal case was filed against him. He therefore
submitted that the petitioner should be allowed to
operate the mining lease which is his source of
income. It was also submitted that the respondent has
also issued notice dated 27.11.2017 for breach of
conditions of lease agreement and also stated that
why the lease should not be canceled by such notice.
According to the petitioner, after issuance of the
notice, no further proceedings are initiated by the
respondent-Authority.

¶27

4.On the other hand, learned Assistant government
Pleader Mr.Amit Barot for the respondents submitted
that the criminal case filed against the petitioner,
is pending before the competent Court. Till such case
is disposed of, the lease cannot be allowed to be
operated as the petitioner along with his employees
has indulged in creating duplicate royalty passes,
thereby, causing loss to the Government by committing
breach of various conditions of lease agreement. As
the subject matter is pending before the competent
Court, the petitioner should not be allowed to
operate lease and therefore, the respondent No.2-
Assistant Geologist has rightly rejected the
application filed by the petitioner.

¶28

5. Considering the submissions made by both the

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

C/SCA/9954/2018 ORDER

¶31

sides, as the criminal case filed against the
petitioner is pending, for the offences stated herein
above, for preparing the duplicate royalty passes and
thereby, the petitioner has prima-facie caused loss
to the Government and therefore, the respondent No.2-
Assistant Geologist has rightly rejected the
application filed by the petitioner for operating the
lease which was alloted to him in the year 2012.

¶32

6.In view of the aforesaid fact situation, no
interference is called for in the impugned order
dated 01.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.2-
Assistant Geologist, rejecting the application of the
petitioner who operated the lease by exercising
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

¶33

7.The petition, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed. Notice is discharged.

¶34

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶35

PALAK

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Viramsing Narsungji Vaghela v. Commissioner Geology and Mining

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viramsing Narsungji Vaghela v. Commissioner Geology and Mining

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

Pushpaben Babubhai Joshi Vs the Appellate Authority and the Electrical Inspector

Parshottambhai Gangarambhai Medaat Vs Laxmipura Kadva Patidar Sarvajanik Madali

Mafaji Ramshiji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) Vs Rekhaben J. Vania

Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) Vs Pankajkumar Bachubhai Velani

Ganchi Ismailbhai Musabhai Vs Regional Passport Officer