High Court of Gujarat
MUKESHBHAI VITHTHALBHAI BARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The show‑cause notice issued by the Geologist and the Collector’s order are ultra vires and must be quashed, with the matter remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration after proper notice.
Summary
The petitioner, Minaben Tarunbhai Thakkar, held a mining lease for ordinary sand on 2 hectares of non‑forest land in Chhotaudepur and had his mining plan approved until March 2026. The respondent authorities, acting on instructions from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, locked the petitioner’s ATR and issued a show‑cause notice dated 26‑03‑2025 through the Geologist, followed by an order from the Collector on 04‑04‑2025, without giving the petitioner a hearing or reasons. The petitioner contended that under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, only the Collector could issue such a notice and that the order was ultra vires for lacking reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The Court examined the delegation of powers under Rule 76 of the Rules and found that the notice and order were improperly issued and unsupported by requisite reasons. Consequently, the Court quashed both the show‑cause notice and the Collector’s order and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration with a proper notice to all parties. The status quo was maintained pending the Collector’s fresh decision, and all connected civil applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Geologist was authorized under the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 to issue a show‑cause notice.
- Whether the Collector’s order, issued without assigning reasons, is valid under principles of natural justice.
- Whether the show‑cause notice and the Collector’s order should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Subjects
Mining leaseShow‑cause noticeNatural justiceDelegation of powersGujarat Minor Mineral Concession RulesArticle 226QuashRemandATRNo mining zone
Judgment
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4989 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4989 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5104 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5104 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5105 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5105 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5128 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5128 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5129 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5129 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5754 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5754 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5783 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5783 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5801 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5801 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5803 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5803 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5874 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5874 of 2025
With
Page 1 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6053 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6053 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6154 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6154 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6311 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6311 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6399 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6399 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6439 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6439 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6646 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6736 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6736 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6816 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6861 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6861 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7122 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7122 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9765 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9765 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Page 2 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MINABEN TARUNBHAI THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANG NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARSHADRAY A
DAVE(3461) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KRUTI M SHAH FOR MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
IN SCAs/5801/2025, 5803/2025, 5874/2025, 6053/2025 & 7122/2025
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 17/03/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions,
the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned
counsel, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.4.
3. The present petitions are )led under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the show-cause notice dated
26.03.2025 issued by the Geologist, Chhotaudepur as well as the
order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Collector, Chhotaudepur.
Page 3 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
4. In view of the fact that Special Civil Application No. 4989 of
2025 is treated as lead matter, facts mentioned in the said Special
Civil Application are considered. It is the case of the petitioner that,
the petitioner was granted a mining lease, by executing a lease deed,
whereby the petitioner was allotted land admeasuring 2.00 hectors
(Non Forest) situated at Survey No. Opposite of 40 and 41 of village
Dhokaliya of Taluka Bodeli of District Chhotaudepur on the banks of
River Orsang. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to mine
Ordinary Sand. Such lease was renewed time to time. That, upon
introduction of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 the
petitioner had to tender the mining plan to the Respondent Authority
for the land and mining lease in question. Such plan could be
submitted only after the clearance of various authorities under
various statutes. That, after considering the mining plan on the
touchstone of the rules and various other regulations and statutes,
the Respondent Authorities approved the mining plan of the petitioner
vide communication dated 1st January 2023. Accordingly, the Mining
Plan came to be approved till 31 st March 2025, which is now further
extended upto 31st March 2026. That, pursuant to the same, the
petitioner continued mining activity at the site allotted to the
petitioner, however, the respondent restrained the petitioner from its
mining activity for the reasons best known to the respondent, without
any notice and thus, the petitioner could not continue with the mining
activity as the ATR of the petitioner was locked. That, on the other
hand, the respondent issued a hearing notice dated 29 th November
2024 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner for hearing on the
date )xed i.e. 12th February 2024, which was )xed on the basis of the
communication / instruction received by the respondent from Sardar
Sarovar Nigam Limited instructing to see that the excavation does not
take place upto 2.5 kms upstream and 5.5 kms downstream from the
Page 4 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
bridge on the river Orsang. That, upon receipt of such notice, the
petitioner approached the respondents vide letter dated 12 th
December 2024, which is till date not responded to nor any
documents are provided by the respondents. That, being aggrieved
and dissatis)ed by the action of the respondent of illegally locking the
ATR and of restraining the petitioner from mining, the petitioner
approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1524
of 2025. That, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent by
communication dated 30th January 2025 and 14th February 2025 )xed
the hearing on 20th February 2025. That, on the said date, the
petitioner approached the respondents vide letter dated 20 th February
2024, replying to the notice, reserving the right to )le detailed reply
upon supply of the documents sought for by the petitioner in such
communication, which is till date not responded to nor any documents
are provided by the respondents. That, after considering the
contention of the parties this Court directed the respondents to open
the online ATR vide its order 24 th February 2025. That, despite
direction as the respondents did not open the ATR, the petitioner
preferred Contempt Petitioner being Misc. Civil Application No. 653 of
2025. Thereafter on 18th March 2025 opened the ATR and permitted
the petitioner to carry out the mining activity. That, the respondents
vide communication dated 13.03.2025 conveyed to the petitioner that
in view of Scouring the SSNL instructed the respondent to see that no
mining shall take place 2.5 kms upstream and 5.5 kms downstream of
the Aquaduct. The communication further pointed out that revised
district survey report was available on website and further invited
comments on the same within 21 days from the date of
communication. That, after opening of the ATR and in furtherance of
the aforesaid proceedings related to Aquaduct and no mining zone,
the petitioner was once again issued a notice dated 26 th March 2025
Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
bearing no/. GCU/Aquaduct/lease/2024-25/1971 calling upon the
petitioner to assign reason as to why the lease be not cancelled or
stalled since it falls within no mining zone, which is challenged by way
of a separate petition. That thereafter, immediately on next day the
petitioner was served with a notice dated 27 th March 2025 bearing No.
GCU/QL/EC/2025/1991, whereby the petitioner was called upon to
assign reasons as to why the lease be not terminated or stalled. That,
both the aforesaid notices are responded by the petitioner by )ling a
reply with a request to provide relevant documents and pointing out
that the proceedings initiated are in breach of principle of Natural
Justice as well as in breach of communication dated 13 th March 2025,
however, the Respondent Authorities, without considering the reply
)led by the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of hearing
has once again blocked the ATR of the Petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatis)ed with the inaction on the part of
the Respondent Authorities, petitioner has preferred this petition.
6. Heard Mr. Devang Nanavati, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Harshadray Dave and Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned counsels
appearing for the respective petitioners, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent No.4.
7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the
show-cause notice was required to be issued by the Collector,
Chhotaudepur himself instead of that, the show-cause notice is issued
by the Geologist, which is contrary to Rule 76 of the Gujarat Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. He has further submitted that DSR
Page 6 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
approval is also not granted and under such circumstances, learned
senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has urged that the show-cause issued by
the Geologist, Chhotaudepur as well as the order passed by the
Collector, Chhotaudepur are required to be quashed and set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Kanara was unable to
controvert the settled provisions of law, more particularly, Rule 76 of
the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, however, he has
submitted that the order was passed by the Collector after hearing
the concerned parties but, when the notice is issued by the Geologist,
it is not permissible in the eye of law that such notice is to be issued
by the Geologist.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears that if
the powers are delegated to the Geologist then, notice as well as the
order, both are to be passed by the same authority, instead of that,
the notice is issued by the Geologist and the order is passed by the
Collector. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector, it appears
that no reason was assigned by the Collector, while passing the
impugned order and therefore, under such circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the impugned notice as well as the order are required to
be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be
remanded back to the Collector, Chhotaudepur for fresh consideration
of the issue.
10. In the result, the petitions are hereby allowed. The impugned
show-cause notice dated 26.03.2025 issued by the Geologist,
Chhotaudepur as well as the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the
Collector, Chhotaudepur are hereby quashed and set aside. The
Page 7 of 8
C/SCA/4989/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
matters are remanded back to the Collector, Chhotaudepur for
deciding the issue afresh, after giving proper opportunity to all the
concerned parties and after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, at whose behest the
proceedings have been initiated by the Geologist. The Collector,
Chhotaudeur is hereby directed to issue notice to all the concerned
parties within a period of three days from the date of receipt of writ
of this Order and the Collector shall decide the issue afresh before
30.03.2026. The status quo to be maintained by all the concerned
parties, till the issue is decided by the Collector, Chhotaudepur. It is
open for all the concerned parties to raise all the contentions
available in the eye of law and it is to be agitated before the Collector,
Chhotaudepur at the time of hearing. Rule is made absolute.
11. It is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of
the matter and the matters are remanded back to the Collector,
Chhotaudepru for deciding the issue afresh.
12. In view of the disposal of the main petitions, all the connected
civil applications also stand disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 17:47:22
Page 8 of 8
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Mining lease"Sign in to search