Disposed

Prakashbhai Manharbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, Notice to Be Served through

Gujarat HC9 Nov 2022SCA/8315/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral judgment disposing Writ Special Civil Appeals concerning mining lease applications. Court declined to decide on merits, directed authorities to independently reconsider applications per existing rules, and disposed of petitions.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to decide mining lease applications independently per rules; petitions disposed.

Prakashbhai Manharbhai Prajapati Vs State of Gujarat, Notice to Be Served through — Gujarat HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C/SCA/8315/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8315 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8317 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8318 of 2017

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶6

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

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

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

¶12

PRAKASHBHAI MANHARBHAI PRAJAPATI

¶13

Versus

¶14

STATE OF GUJARAT, NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH & 3 other(s)

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS DARSHANA PANCHOLI(5866) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶18

MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 IN SCA NO.8315/2017 MS SHRUNJAL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 IN SCA NO.8317/2017

¶19

MS ROSHNI PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 IN SCA NO.8318/2017

¶20

NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶23

Date : 09/11/2022

¶24

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective learned Assistant

¶26

Page 1 of 4

¶27

C/SCA/8315/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2022

¶28

Government Pleaders waive service of notice of Rule for the respondents in the respective petitions.

¶29

With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, all these matters are taken up for final hearing today.

¶30

Challenge in these petitions is to the order of the revisional authority by which the initial order of rejecting the applications by the competent authority for lease hold rights of mining have been rejected.

¶31

Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by the orders under challenge, the authorities have grossly discriminated, inasmuch as, the same authority has, in similar facts, the matters were remanded for their consideration.

¶32

Learned AGPs appearing in the respective petitions for

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

C/SCA/8315/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2022

¶35

the respondent – State would submit that the orders of the authorities is just and proper and no parity can be claimed. He would further submit that in view of the amendment to the Rules, the cases will have to be decided in accordance with the Rules in force.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that if the writ applicants were to file an application seeking a quarry lease with respect to the lease area as stated in the writ-applications, the respondent authorities may consider the same in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. The respondent authorities shall decide the same independently without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the authorities. All the contentions that may be taken by both the parties be taken into consideration, while deciding the applications, if any, which may be filed by the writ-applicants.

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

C/SCA/8315/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2022

¶39

It is clarified that, this Court has not opined on merits of the matter and it is kept open for the authorities to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶40

With the above directions, all these petitions stand disposed of. Rule is answered accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.

¶41

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶42

VATSAL S. KOTECHA

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Prakashbhai Manharbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, Notice to Be Served through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashbhai Manharbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, Notice to Be Served through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ami Amrutbhai Makwana Minor Daughter through Father Amrutbhai Chhaganbhai Makwana Vs Birth and Death Registrar

Anitaben W/O Kalpeshkumar Patel D/O Jagjivanbhai Cheldas Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Somajibhai Punjabhai Damor Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara, (in Charge), Division Vadodara

Tuvar Dhruvsinh Vikramsinh Minor through Father Tuvar Vikramsinh Naranji Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Tejaskumar Dharamchand Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Daxabahen Chhanabhai D/O Narandas Kuberdas Patel Vs State of Gujarat