AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Once a lease always a lease. Obviously an absurd proposition. Naturally therefore the petitioners have not made submissions in these clear terms. But on proper examination of the contentions raised by the petitioners such will be the position if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted notwithstanding the contrary Legislative mandate given by the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980

(2.) All these three petitions arise out of the orders passed by the appropriate authorities under the provisions of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 (the Rules for short). The petitioners were granted quarry lease in respect of certain land for excavation of minor minerals. It is not disputed that the initial lease granted came to an end sometime prior to the year 1980. The petitioners submitted applications for renewal of lease. Initially the lease appears to have been renewed for a year or two. Later on their applications for renewal of lease for further period have been rejected mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (the Forest Act for short) which came into force from October 1980 it was not possible to renew the lease because the area in question was falling within the reserved forest area. Since the competent authority under the Rules rejected the applications the petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeals and hence the present petitions.

(3.) It is submitted that under the provision of Rule 38(1)(b) revision is provided but the petitioners have not preferred revision because the Government has issued circulars wherein it is stated that on account of the provisions of the Forest Act the renewal of lease should not be granted. Therefore according to the petitioners it would be futile to prefer revision application before the Government. This contention is not well-founded because instruction issued on administrative side is not necessarily binding to an authority exercising judicial or quasi- judicial powers. However in the facts and circumstances of the cases and when the petitions are pending before this Court for a pretty long time it would be desirable to dispose of the same on merits.