Unexplained Delay of Ten Years Precludes Review of Mining Lease Cancellation and Forfeiture Orders

The petitioner was granted a 10-year mining lease for marble in 2003 by the Collector, Banaskantha

On 29.04.2010, the lease was cancelled and the security deposit confiscated due to the petitioner’s failure to submit periodic reports and non-payment of rent and interest

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed on 13.08.2012, and a revision application was dismissed on 05.08.2015

Nearly ten years later, the petitioner filed a review application, which was dismissed by the Secretary, Industries and Mines Department on 24.01.2025

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash these orders and for re-grant of the lease upon payment of dues

1. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the petitioner’s willingness to pay arrears

2. Whether the long delay of approximately ten years in seeking review/remedy precludes the petitioner from obtaining discretionary relief under Article 226/227

The court's decision was governed by Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction

The case involved the application of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015, and the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017

A fundamental legal principle applied was the doctrine of laches (unreasonable delay), which holds that constitutional courts may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction if a party lacks a satisfactory explanation for significant delays in approaching the court or relevant authority

The petitioner contended that the cancellation was unjust because they were denied physical access to the land due to tribal occupancy and asserted that no specific show-cause notice was issued

However, the court focused on the procedural history, noting that the revision application was dismissed in 2015, yet the petitioner waited until 2025 to pursue further review

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any "satisfactory explanation" for this decade-long hiatus

Consequently, the court held that the respondent authority acted correctly in dismissing the review on the grounds of excessive delay, as the petitioner’s conduct did not justify the exercise of the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction

The rule was discharged with no order as to costs. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to make a fresh application before the concerned authority, to be decided in accordance with the law