High Court of Gujarat
SHIV STONE CRUSHERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The petition is allowed; the orders dated 30.08.2025 and 20.11.2025 are quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh hearing with an opportunity of hearing.
Summary
Shiv Stone Crusher filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, challenging the rejection of its quarry lease application and the closure of its online ATR account by the Industrial and Mines Department and the Collector of Bhavnagar. The petitioner argued that the actions were taken without a hearing, violating Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017, and that its lease, granted before the 2017 Rules, should be treated as a "saved case" with entitlement to a 30‑year lease. The respondents contended that the lower court’s order could not be controverted and that the matter should be remanded for fresh hearing. The High Court examined the procedural deficiencies and the applicability of the 2017 Rules to the petitioner’s case. Finding that the authorities had not afforded a hearing and had acted contrary to the statutory provisions, the Court quashed the impugned orders, directed the reopening of the ATR account, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing with an opportunity of being heard. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the order dated 30.08.2025 rejecting the quarry lease application under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
- Whether the closure of the petitioner’s online ATR account on 05.10.2025 complied with Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017.
- Whether the lease granted prior to the 2017 Rules qualifies as a "saved case" and is entitled to a 30‑year term under Rule 12(3)(b).
- Whether the Collector’s termination order dated 20.11.2025 was procedurally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of execution of the impugned orders pending adjudication.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Article 226Mines and Mineral ActGujarat Minor Mineral Concession RulesGujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining) Rulesquarry leaseprocedural fairnessATR accountquashing orderremand
Judgment
C/SCA/15553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15553 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================
SHIV STONE CRUSHER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is 3led by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Mines and
Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the
provisions of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and
under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and
Transportation) Rules, 2017 seeking following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/15553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
the Section O%cer, Industrial and Mines Department.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction of quashing and
setting aside the action of the respondents of closing
down the online ATR account of the petitioner having
QL No. 0401005515 in respect of lease of black trap
situated at survey no. 216/1/2/2 Paiki 1 and 216/2/2
Paiki 2 (private) admeasuring Hector 05-38-22 square
meters at Village Sodvadara, Taluka District:
Bhavnagar and further be pleased to direct the said
respondents to open the said ATR account and permit
the petitioner to do the mining activities and to issue
royalty passes for doing the mining activities over the
said lease.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent
authorities to consider that the case of the petitioner
does not fall in the eligible criteria attached to
Schedule – II Rule 4(1) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral
Concession Rules 2017 and the petitioner is entitled
to run the said quarry lease in the name of
partnership >rm as per the quarry lease executed on
30.08.2018.
(CC) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
setting aside the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by
the Collector, Bhavnagar.
(D) Pending admission hearing and >nal disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay
operation execution and implementation of the
impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the
Section O%cer, Industrial and Mines Department.
(E) Pending admission hearing and >nal disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the
respondents to open the online ATR account of the
petitioner and permit him to do the mining activities
over the lease of black trap situated at at survey no.
216/1/2/2 Paiki 1 and 216/2/2 Paiki 2 (private)
admeasuring Hector 05-38-22 square meters at
Village Sodvadara, Taluka District: Bhavnagar.
(EE) Pending admission, hearing and >nal disposal of this
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/15553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay
operation, execution and implementation of the order
dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar.
2. It is the contention on the part of the petitioner that present
petition is 3led challenging the impugned order dated 30.08.2025
passed by the Section O@cer, Industrial and Mines Department
whereby it has been stated that the application of quarry lease was
rejected and challenging the illegal action of closing down the online
ATR account of lease of black trap situated at survey no. 216/1/2/2
Paiki 1 and 216/2/2 Paiki 2 (private) admeasuring Hector 05-38-22
square meters at Village Sodvadara, Taluka District: Bhavnagar on
05.10.2025, without giving any opportunity of hearing, without
passing any order and without following the provisions of Rule 5(4) of
the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and
Transportation) Rules, 2017.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts
which are narrated in the memo of petition and also submitted that
the petitioner applied for grant of quarry and the petitioner was
holding Environmental Clearance Certi3cate dated 29.12.2016 and
non-agriculture permission dated 09.09.2025 prior to coming into
force of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017 and the
case of the petitioner was considered as “saved case” and Letter of
Intent came to be issued on 08.06.2018. It is submitted that the
District Collector, Bhavnagar vide order dated 30.07.2018 granted
order of lease and lease deed came to be executed between the
petitioner and respondents for a period of 20 years. It is further
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/15553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
submitted that as per Rule 12(3)(b), the State Government has to
execute the lease deed for 30 years, however, the petitioner was
granted lease only for 20 years and w.e.f. 30.07.2018, the petitioner
started doing mining activities in accordance with law and as per the
Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that the In-charge Geologist has
issued a letter on 27.11.2024 stating that he was directed to submit
re-proposal in pursuance of the letter dated 14.06.2023 wrote by
Section O@cer in respect of the lease of the petitioner and the
petitioner has replied to the said communication on 20.12.2024. It is
also submitted that by way of communications, the Geologist has
asked to ful3ll the requirement, for which the petitioner has given
reply asking certain clari3cations and, thereafter, respondent No.4
issued notice on 11.09.2025 inter alia stating that the application for
quarry lease has been rejected on 30.08.2025 and, therefore, why the
ATR account should not be stopped. It is submitted that without
following the provisions contained in Rule 5(4), the online ATR
account was locked on 05.10.2025 and hence, the petitioner preferred
the present petition wherein this Court on 20.11.2025 issued notice
and on the same date, without giving any notice and opportunity of
hearing, the Collector, Bhavnagar has terminated the quarry lease by
exercising the power under Rule 43 of the Rules, 2017. It is submitted
that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that he is
unable to controvert the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court and in similar set of fact, this Court has remanded the matter
back and directed the respondents to hear afresh after giving an
opportunity of hearing. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order.
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/15553/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
6. Having considered the averments made in the petition and
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the orders passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, I am of the appears that the petition deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the concerned authority. The respondent
– authority is directed to hear and decide the matter afresh after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall
be at liberty to raise all contentions available under the law. The
respondent – authority shall hear the petitioner, decide and adjudicate
all the contentions raised by the petitioner by passing the reasoned
order. Till then, the respondents are directed to open the ATR account
of the petitioner forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:50:17
Page 5 of 5
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 226"Sign in to search