Facts
The petitioner was granted a quarry lease (QL 0108041914) for mining ordinary sand in Jamnagar for three years starting 09.06.2017
Source reference: p. 2Following government notifications in 2018 and 2022 amending the Concession Rules, the petitioner’s lease was purportedly extended until 31.03.2025
Source reference: p. 3Respondent No. 3 (Geologist) closed the petitioner’s ATR/e-royalty account without prior notice and issued a communication dated 25.01.2024 stating the lease had expired on 08.06.2022
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this communication and sought the unlocking of the e-royalty portal
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in closing the online ATR/e-royalty account without notice was in violation of Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of mining activities based on the alleged extension of the lease period
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010/2017, and specifically Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, which governs the procedure for monitoring and regulating mineral accounts
Source reference: p. 1, 3Judicial precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 10012 of 2024 (decided 08.08.2024), which addressed identical legal challenges regarding the expiration of leases and the closure of royalty portals
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court evaluated the petitioner’s claim that the administrative action was proceduraly flawed under the 2017 Rules
Source reference: p. 3the court found that the central legal issue—concerning the validity of lease extensions and the authority's right to lock e-royalty accounts upon lease expiration—had already been adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench in a recent, identical matter (SCA No. 10012/2024)
Source reference: p. 4Referring to paragraphs 5, 6, and 25 of that precedent, the court determined that the petitioner’s situation lacked a distinct legal ground to merit a departure from the previous ruling
Source reference: p. 4Consequently, the court held that the petitioner failed to establish any infirmity or illegality in the Geologist’s communication that would justify judicial interference under Article 226
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The court concluded that no ground was available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned action in light of the settled precedent
The petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. No orders as to costs were made
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
VAGHERA DEVJIBHAI NATHABHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in