Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Petitioner one Shri Karsanbhai Chhotubhai Gamit is before this Court being aggrieved of non-renewal of lease of excavate sand from river bed. The Collector rejected the renewal application by order dated 31.01.2005 on the ground that the Gram Panchayat of village ‘Kel Kutch’ has objection against renewal. The submissions made at the time of hearing of the matter on 18.01.2005, were found ‘not acceptable’ and hence the request for renewal of lease was not accepted. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved of this order preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Appeal), Geological and Mines Department, State of Gujarat, being Appeal No. 141 of 2005. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by judgment and order dated 07.05.2005. The Appellate Authority recorded the following grounds in its order that the Collector has submitted his remarks, perusal of which reveals that renewal of lease of the petitioner will prejudice the law and order situation in the village; the Forest Department has filed a police case against the petitioner; that the Collector had got the place of lease surveyed by a surveyor, wherein it was found that the petitioner is creating disputes about the right of way; that the villagers had given statements to the surveyor, expressing their dissatisfaction, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 11.12.2004 recommending, ‘not to grant lease to the petitioner’. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved of that preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority, who too, by order dated 24.02.2006, rejected the reivision application. Thus there are three consecutive orders, rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that all the three authorities have committed an error, which is required to be corrected by this Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution of India. He submitted that the present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is complaining about breach of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that a resolution from the Panchayat is not a ‘sine qua non’ either for grant of lease or renewal thereof. When the learned Advocate is confronted with amended Rule 11 of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 which is amended by the Gujarat Minor Minerals (Amendment) Rules, 1997. He submitted that a resolution from the Panchayat is not a ‘sine qua non’ either for grant of lease or renewal thereof. When the learned Advocate is confronted with amended Rule 11 of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 which is amended by the Gujarat Minor Minerals (Amendment) Rules, 1997. By this amendment, Sub-Rule (2) is inserted, which reads as under:— “Prior to granting the quarry lease in the scheduled Areas, the Competent Authority shall obtain the recommendations of that village Panchayat within which area of quarry is situated.” The learned Advocate for the petitioner explained away this Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 by saying that this sub-rule is to be observed only at the time of granting of fresh lease and not at the time of renewal of lease. He submitted that once the Gram Panchayat passes a resolution, recommending the grant lease in favour of any party, the Gram Panchayat becomes functus officio and has nothing to do with renewals of lease subsequently. The submissions of the learned Advocate cannot be accepted by this Court as even plain reading of Sub-rule(2) of Rule 11 cannot mean what is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 5. The learned Advocate invited attention of the Court to a ‘deed of compromise’, produced at Annexure-F to this petition. He submitted that it is on 22.03.2005 that a ‘compromise; was entered into between the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, members of the Panchayat and other leading persons of the village on one hand and the petitioner on the other. The same is executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. It is to the effect that, lease be granted to the petitioner because, by grant of lease, there will be development of the village and the poor people of the village will get employment’. It is also stated that, they do not have any objection to the grant of lease to the petitioner.’ The very fact that such a ‘compromise’ is executed on 22.03.2005, after the renewal application was rejected by the Collector, by order dated 31.01.2005, on the ground that the Gram Panchayat has objected to grant of lease, suggests that the petitioner is capable of manipulating the things. A body like Gram Panchayat functions according to law by passing appropriate resolutions in the meeting held as required under the law and not by such compromise. A body like Gram Panchayat functions according to law by passing appropriate resolutions in the meeting held as required under the law and not by such compromise. This compromise is not even worth the paper on which it is written. But, then it does suggest that the petitioner out of frustration can go to what extent to get his lease renewed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner made available a xerox copy of the aforesaid compromise deed, which is taken on record. 6. This very aspect i.e., working of the petitioner and employing all possible method to get the lease renewed, is reflected from the order of the Revisional Authority. At a later stage, i.e., 25.01.2006, in a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, two resolutions were passed, one at Serial No. 5 that there is no objection if the lease is renewed in favour of the petitioner and another at Serial No. 6. One says that lease is not to be renewed, whereas the other one says that there is no objection if the lease is renewed. The Revisional Authority has rightly observed that this aspect be taken into consideration by the District Development Officer. It is hoped that this message must have reached to the District Development Officer and he must have taken appropriate action in the matter so as to see that, in future, such occurrence is not repeated. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced a document at Annexure-’L’, which prima facie appears to be a letter dated 30.06.1999 written from the District Geologist’s Office at Collectors’ Office, Mines and Minerals Branch. The letter is addressed to one Shri Ranchhodbhai Maganbhai Od, at Post Khambhaliya, Taluka Vansada, District Navsari. The document appears to be an incomplete one. The Court required the original of the same. The learned Advocate submitted that he does not possess the same. He further submitted that he has produced the same only with a view to rely upon the relevant part of that communication, which according to him, is applicable to the facts of the petitioner. He submitted that in the aforesaid letter, certain resolutions of the Government are referred to which according to him suggest that, ‘no resolution from the Gram Panchayat is a condition precedent for grant/renewal of a lease. He submitted that in the aforesaid letter, certain resolutions of the Government are referred to which according to him suggest that, ‘no resolution from the Gram Panchayat is a condition precedent for grant/renewal of a lease. In view of the fact that the document is not making a coherent reading and the original is not produced though asked for, the same cannot be and is not taken into consideration by this Court. 8. In the present case, not one but three consecutive authorities have found that the lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be renewed. Despite the best efforts, the learned Advocate for the petitioner could not make out a case which will warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 9. However, at the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is clarified that rejection of this petition does not debar for petitioner from making an application for grant of new lease or renewal of the old lease, if it is otherwise permissible in law. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. * * * * *