ORDER : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is taken out as PIL with following prayers: (A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Government authorities not to renew the lease agreement with respect to land at village: Jadva given to the respondent company by lease agreement dated 14.11.1995 till all illegalities have been cured. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to appoint a Special Investigation Team of experts relating to Environment, Mining, Revenue and Economic Scam against the respondent Company and its management to reveal the wrong doings of the company and thereby submit report to the Government and direct the Government to pass appropriate orders to control the same. (C) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to take action against the company for causing pollution of Air and Water and for the irregularities mention the petition and till then direct the respondent company to stop production in cement plant at village Jadva. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the government authorities to renew the lease agreement for mining on the land situated at village Jadva and other places in Abdasa Taluka till all irregularities and illegalities are cured and conditions of lease agreement are complied with by the respondent company. (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to appoint a Special Investigation Team of experts relating to Environment, Mining, Revenue and Economic Scam under the direct supervision of this Hon'ble High Court against the company, in the interest of justice. (F) To pass such other and further orders as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner. 2. It must be mentioned here that at one point of time, there was a specific written request received by counsel for the petitioner to urge this Court to grant permission to withdraw this PIL and accordingly, the request was made. The request is placed with letter dated 02.07.2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. It must be mentioned here that at one point of time, there was a specific written request received by counsel for the petitioner to urge this Court to grant permission to withdraw this PIL and accordingly, the request was made. The request is placed with letter dated 02.07.2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 invited this Court's attention to latest affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 23.7.2019 and indicated that the allegations and reply in tabular form would persuade this Court to dispose of this PIL. The said tabular depiction is reproduced herein below. Allegation raised in PIL Current Status/Compliance of the alleged breach (1) Misappropriation of Funds (a) The company misutilized the amount of 15 crores allocated to it by the State for the purpose of running a desalination plant. (para 4.5 and 4.6 at page 5, 6; ground (k) (iii) at page 20, also see page 48-57-Annexure C, D) also see- (para 7 of the Rejoinder, page 765) (a) Company has invested an amount of Rs. 38 crores for the desalination plant (page 864, para 5.6 of the Sur rejoinder) (page 874, para 5.24 of the Sur Rejoinder) (b) Company supplied water for an amount of Rs. 11 crores as against total advance of Rs. 15 crores granted by the Government. GSWWB has initiated Arbitration proceedings and even otherwise the dispute is private in nature. (para 23.8 of reply at page 333, also see page 445-446 -Annexure R17) (c) Arbitration petition No. 35 of 2011 is filed by GWSB against the erring industry. (Para 8 Page 152-153 of the Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 (District Collector) (b) Company wrongly received benefits from the state of Gujarat to the tune of Rs. 40 crores in the form of tax rebate after the earthquake in 2001. (para 4.7 @ page 6, ground (k)(iv) @ page 21, also see page 55-Annexure E) [company also filed a false affidavit indicating that it had returned the entire amount of Rs. 40 crores when the actual amount due was Rs. 80 crores (see para 2 @ 3 page 1152 the Addl. Affidavit of the petitioner; Also see Annexure A1 and A2 at page 1158-1160)] (a) Company has not claimed benefit of tax rebate of Rs. 40 Crores as alleged. 40 crores when the actual amount due was Rs. 80 crores (see para 2 @ 3 page 1152 the Addl. Affidavit of the petitioner; Also see Annexure A1 and A2 at page 1158-1160)] (a) Company has not claimed benefit of tax rebate of Rs. 40 Crores as alleged. (para 23.9 of reply at page 335, also see page 447-485 -Annexure R18) (b) With regard to Appeal No. E/615/2010, vide order dated 02.05.2011, recovery proceedings are stayed pursuant to the pre-deposit of Rs. 40 crores made by the Company and the matter is still pending (Para 3.3 of Affidavit dated 03.02.2017 at Page 1171) (c) Company has wrongly availed benefit of Rs. 850 crores towards sales tax and wrongly understated its liabilities in the balance sheet. (See para 5 & 6 of Additional Affidavit at page 1154; also see Annexure A-3 at page 1161) (a) The Respondent Company has availed Sales Tax benefit under the Industrial Policy of 1995-2000 of Government of Gujarat as a Premier Unit Status (Para 3.3 of Affidavit dated 03.02.2017 at page 1171) (d) Company has misappropriated funds of Rs. 200 crores allotted by HUDCO (Para 4.9 at page 7; ground (i), ground (k)(v) at page 19, 20 also see page 65-Annexure H) (a) HUDCO had never disbursed any amount to the Respondent Company at all. (Para 23.11 of reply at page 339, also see page 445-446-Annexure R17) 2. Breach of Environmental laws (a) Company is throwing alkali dust and cement particles in open land (para 4.8, 4.13 at page 7, 8; ground (g), ground (k)(vi) at page 19, 21; also see page 62, 72-Annexure G, K) (a) Alkali dust is not hazardous as sought to be alleged. In any case, alkali lime is not thrown in open space but in pits at a designated placed within the premises of the plant. Moreover, company is using such alkali lime in its kiln. Thus, first alkali lime is stored and further used in the process (Para 23.10 of reply @ page 338, 359, Para 5.25 of Sir-rejoinder of Res. no. 8 at page 875). (b) Company does not undertake water sprinkling regularly and the same was done for at the time of inspection only with a view to take photographs. (page 778, para 25 of the rejoinder) (c) Company has not followed the terms and conditions and also caused pollution. no. 8 at page 875). (b) Company does not undertake water sprinkling regularly and the same was done for at the time of inspection only with a view to take photographs. (page 778, para 25 of the rejoinder) (c) Company has not followed the terms and conditions and also caused pollution. (d) Court ought to appoint SIT of experts to visit the site and submit a report as regards the extent of pollution being caused by the Company. (See para 11 at page 1188 of the Affidavit dated 23.01.2017) (a) Company is incurring heavy expenditure on water sprinkling through tankers to reduce pollution. (Para 23.10 of reply at page 337, also see page 488-491]-Annexure R20. Para 2 of Affidavit on behalf of Res. 5 GPCB at page no. 278 also confirm the same). (b) Company has created a 3 Km long closed conveyor belt for transporting material from mining lease to clinker plant to avoid pollution during the course of transportation. (Para 23.10 of reply at page 338, also see page 492 & 923-924 for photographs-Annexure R21 of the Reply, Annexure 8 of the Sur Rejoinder) (c) The company has installed high-tech pollution control machinery viz. Multi cyclone, ESP, Bag Filters etc to prevent air pollution. (d) The company is undertaking mining operations through "Surface Miner" which is the latest technology in the mining industry causing zero dust pollution. (Para 23.10 of reply at page 337, also see photographs page 486-487-Annexure R19) (e) Air and water samples from different places were taken and analyzed and found to be within the permission limits prescribed by the GPCB. (Page 279-280 of Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 5 GPCB, Page 279 & 280.) (3) Illegal Mining and Violation of Lease Terms (a) company is carrying out mining activities within 3 kms of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary which is not permissible in law. Furthermore, as per the terms of the lease the Company is required to carry out excavation 50 mts away from water bodies, but the company has undertaken mining activities within a close range of rivers and canals and diverted river water (para 4.14 at page 9 and ground (d) at page 18; also see page 74-76-Annexure L & M) (b) Entire lease area of laterite mineral in Naredo village is within 3 Kms of sanctuary. Even entire area of Pozlonic clay of Hothiyai village within 3 kms of sanctuary. Even entire area of Pozlonic clay of Hothiyai village within 3 kms of sanctuary. (para 12, page 767-768 of the Rejoinder). This is in violation of Supreme Court Directions. (See page 790, Annexure P1 of the Rejoinder) (a) As per the letter of the PCCF, Gandhinagar, the limestone mines of the company at Jadva Village is outside of Eco-sensitive Zone of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary. (347-348 and 742 of Affidavit in reply by Co.) (b) The company has stopped mining of the Pozlonic clay. (868 para 5.10 of Affidavit in reply by Co.) (c) The company has stopped mining Pozlonic clay. Further, entire lease are of silica sand at Motiber is outside 3 kms of the Sanctuary (para 868, para 5.10 of the Sur rejoinder) (c) In terms of order dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Collector's office, the Company had illegally excavated limestone of 3,11,474 MT and therefore, a penalty of approximately Rs. 10 crores was imposed on the Company. (para 4.15 at page 9; also seepage 77-80, Annexure N, O) (a) The order passed by the Collector was challenged by the company and the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 20.04.2017 set-aside the order passed by the Collector. (d) Company's lease is liable to be terminated for violation of Mineral Concession rules, 1960, MCDR, 1988 as well as the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. In any case, lease of the Company expired in 2016 and cannot be renewed on account of the violations and breaches committed by the Company. (e) There cannot be a deemed extension of mining lease since Section 8A (5) states that; mining lease to be extended subject to compliance with terms and conditions. (para 5 of the Rejoinder, page 764) (a) By virtue of amendment in Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957, mining leases which were granted under the Act are deemed to be granted for a period of 50 years. (para 29 at page 357.) The Industries & Mines Department vide its order dated 26.11.2018 extended the lease period upto 18.03.2046. (f) Company has failed to maintain green belt in 33% of the land allotted to it for mining purpose as required under the lease agreement as well as the environmental clearance. (page 775, para 18 of the rejoinder) (a) company has maintained green belt area as required. (page 872, para 5.18 of the Sur rejoinder) 4. (f) Company has failed to maintain green belt in 33% of the land allotted to it for mining purpose as required under the lease agreement as well as the environmental clearance. (page 775, para 18 of the rejoinder) (a) company has maintained green belt area as required. (page 872, para 5.18 of the Sur rejoinder) 4. Illegality in land dealing and encroachment (a) company had obtained 500 acres of land for production of salt at Abdasa Taluka for a period of 10 years. However, activity for production of salt had not started and consequently vide order dated 28.04.2009, the order for lease was cancelled. (para 4.10 at page 7, ground (k) (vi) at page 21; also see page 66-68, Annexure I) (a) Land already reverted back to the Government (a) The company had obtained loan for construction of Hotel and vide order dated 18.10.2006, the Collector had granted land admeasuring 39, 254 sq. mts in Bhuj to Kutch Steel Private Ltd. since the land was not utilized for the purposed for which it was allotted to the District Collector, by order dated 14.02.2014 resumed the land to the Government. Till date possession of the land not taken by the Government. (Para 4.16 at Page 10; ground (k) (vii) at page 22; also see page 81-94, Annexure P, Q; Also see para 7 & 8 of the Affidavit dated 23.01.2017 at page 1155) (b) Memorandum of Association of Kutch Steels Pvt. Ltd. indicates that the object of the company is to do business in Steel and not hotel. (Page 770 para 12 of the rejoinder) (a) The said issue is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Moreover, the Kutch Steels Pvt. Ltd. is not party to the present petition. (C) Company had obtained almost 200 Hectares of land for a meager amount of rent and several other government benefits. (para 4.1 at page 3 and ground (b) at page 17) (a) The company had demanded waste land from the Government. The land was barren and arid in nature and it is the company which has laid the foundation for industrial development on the same. The State Government has allotted Government waste land to the Company at the prevailing market rate after completing necessary procedure for valuation of land. The land was barren and arid in nature and it is the company which has laid the foundation for industrial development on the same. The State Government has allotted Government waste land to the Company at the prevailing market rate after completing necessary procedure for valuation of land. (para 23.7 of reply at page 326) (d) Company has encroached into 50 acres of government land by illegally replacing landmark stones originally placed by DILR after measurement. It has failed to make wire fencing around the land and encroached upon land in Chinkara Sanctuary. (ground (e) at page 18, ground (l) at page 23) (e) As per the affidavit of the Dist. Collector filed on 09.11.2016 (relevant page 282-284), it is clear that company has encroached upon land admeasuring 90450 Sq. mt. By putting up a compound wall as well as residential quarters. (page 772-773, para 14 of the rejoinder). Even permission for putting up such construction was not obtained by the petitioner. (page 773-774, para 15 of the rejoinder) (a) The Company has been in legal possession of the said area and is regularly paying annual royalty to the Government every year for the same. (para 23.4 of reply at page 324-325) (b) The pillars are in existence on the periphery of the area allotted to respondent to identify the lease are allotted to respondent. (Para 47 of reply at page 363-364, also see page 755-762 for photographs-Annexure R45) (c) Even the Mamlatdar, Abdasa and DILR Authorities have both stated that no such complaint as regards illegal encroachment has been brought to their notice. [Refer Pg. 161 and 212, Annexure R-13 of the Reply by Respondent No. 3] (d) As per the Further Affidavit dated 09.11.2016 field by the Respondent No. 3, there is gap between 2 village boundary and the area is 90540 sq. mtr. The company has constructed quarters on the said land, which is Government land. In the report of DILR, it is mentioned that there is a technical mistake found in the earlier survey during the resurvey under Digital land Records Modernization Program. The two different agencies have done survey work hence this technical mistake done. Considering the mistake, a proposal has been sent to Government to rectify the mistake. There is 300 Hec land between the gap of two village boundary. The two different agencies have done survey work hence this technical mistake done. Considering the mistake, a proposal has been sent to Government to rectify the mistake. There is 300 Hec land between the gap of two village boundary. (f) Kutch Steels Pvt. Ltd. had forged duplicate letter pad of Rodasar Gram Panchayat and obtained 40 acres of land for Sponge iron project. Kutch Steel Pvt. limited has taken a loan of Rs. 10 crores from SBI for the purpose of sponge iron project. (para 13, page 772 of the rejoinder) (a) Kutch Steel has not forged any duplicate letter pad, nor has it obtained loan from the SBI as alleged. SBI itself has acknowledged that no loan was obtained by Kutch Steel (Page 870, para 5.13 of the Sur rejoinder.) 5. Irregularity in share transactions (a) Mr. Nathuba Rathod, owner of Mahadev Constructions had undertaken contract work for the Company for which the Managing Director of the Company had allotted shares worth Rs. 31 lakhs, however, the possession of the shares was never handed over to Mr. Rathod and he had filed complaints in relation to the same. No proper investigation was carried out regarding the complaints. (para 4.18 at page 11; Also seepage 99-110 Annexure T) (a) The dispute with Mr. Nathuba Rathod is being agitated before appropriate forums and is of private nature. (para 23.20 of reply at page 352) (b) Mr. Ravi Sanghi and his family members wrongly transferred worth Rs. 66 crores in their own names by cheating several contractors who had previously worked for the company and were assured shares for the work undertaken by them. (para 4.25 at page 14) (a) There is no irregularity in share holding transactions as alleged. (para 23.25 of reply at page 354) 6. Failure of Government Authorities to act on the breaches committed by the Company and complaints of private individuals (a) Villagers of Jadwa made a representation to the GPCB for the pollution being created by the Company, more particularly Alkali dust and nuisance of vehicles. (para 4.8 at page 7; also see page 53-64-Annexure G) (para 4.19 at Page 12, Also see page 111-114-Annexure U) (b) P.C. Gadhvi, leader of Ruling party of Taluka panchayat, had also made representation against pollution being created by the Company. (para 4.8 at page 7; also see page 53-64-Annexure G) (para 4.19 at Page 12, Also see page 111-114-Annexure U) (b) P.C. Gadhvi, leader of Ruling party of Taluka panchayat, had also made representation against pollution being created by the Company. (para 4.20 and 4.21 at page 12; Also see page 115-120-Annexure V, W where request was made not to renew the lease of the company) (c) The GPCB has also time and again issued compliance notices to the petitioner company for air and water pollution being caused by it. (page 781, para of the rejoinder. Also see GPCB notices at Annexure P12 and P13-page 825-836) (a) The respondent company moved Special Civil Suit No. 89/96 in the year 1996 against Mr. P.C. Gadhvi in the Hon'ble Bhuj Court an the Hon'ble Bhuj Court passed decree dated 31.01.2009 against Mr. P.C. Gadhvi directing him to pay damages for defamation. Against the order of Hon'ble Bhuj Court, Mr. P.C. Gadhvi has preferred an Appeal in the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has passed an order dated 13.04.2010 directing him to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the below Court within six weeks pending final hearing of the appeal. (Para 16 of reply at page 320-321, also see page 382-386-Annexure R2 & R3) [Company has always taken quick remedial measures whenever any notice for compliance is issued by GPCB] (e) Inspite of the fact that a penalty of Rs. 10 Crores was imposed on the Company for illegal mining, Company was allowed to restart ATR (All time Royalty) even though no stay was granted by higher authority. (para 4.23 and para 4.24 at page 13; also see page 130-134, Annexure Y and Z) (a) There has been no irregularity in restarting of ATR (All Time Royalty). Since the collector had threatened the Respondent Company on 01.10.2013 to deposit penalty within 10 days or risk stoppage of mining operations, the Company made representations to the Commissioner, Geology and Mines requesting him to ensure that the operations are not hampered. Therefore, based on the representations of the Company, the Commissioner, Geology issued a letter dated 15.10.2013 permitting the Company to restart ATR. (Para 23.24 of reply at page 353-354, also see page 746-750-Annexure R43) 7. Therefore, based on the representations of the Company, the Commissioner, Geology issued a letter dated 15.10.2013 permitting the Company to restart ATR. (Para 23.24 of reply at page 353-354, also see page 746-750-Annexure R43) 7. Irregularity in HSD and LDO transactions (a) The Company had committed irregularities in LDO and HSD for which the collector, vide order dated 06.05.2008, had seized the diesel goods of the company. (para 4.11 at page 8) (b) Company obtains LDO from Government at concessional rate and sells the same in open market to commercial trucks thereby earning huge profits. (para 4.26 at page 15; also see page 135-138-Annexure Z1) (c) Respondent Company obtaining stock of LDO and HDO for personal consumption at a lower rate and doing business from the said products, Everyday more than 100 trucks are employed by the company for transportation of minerals and they have been provided diesel at market rate though the same was received from the Government at a concessional rate. (para 9 of the rejoinder, page 766) (a) Company has already paid a penalty of Rs. 7500/- in respect of the alleged deficit in the stock of HSD. With regard to LDO the same no longer falls within the scope of Essential Commodities Act as per the notification dated 01.22.2007. (b) Pursuant to the said notification, the Collector had revoked proceedings against the Company with respect to LDO (para 23.13 of reply at page 340-341, also see page 508-514-Annexure R27 & R28) (c) Company is not selling but supplying the diesel, free of cost, to the contractor as per the contract with the contractor. (page 865, para 5.8 of the Sur rejoinder, Also see Annexure-2 at page 888) 8. Failure to discharge corporate social responsibility obligations (a) Company had made several promises to offer employment to locals, transportation contracts to local contractors, provide water, health care, roads technical training etc. But the company has failed to provide the same and has made the life of the local people miserable. (Para 4.4 at page 5, ground (c) at page 17) (a) The promises as made by the company are being fulfilled as on date. Everything including employment to locals, transportation contracts to local contractors, provides water, health care, roads technical training etc. is being provided as on date. (b) Recently the company carried out fodder distribution in nearby villages. (c) Deepening of lakes and water bodies. Everything including employment to locals, transportation contracts to local contractors, provides water, health care, roads technical training etc. is being provided as on date. (b) Recently the company carried out fodder distribution in nearby villages. (c) Deepening of lakes and water bodies. (d) Holding medical camp at Mata no Madh-a religious place near the plant. (8) Miscellaneous (a) Company has been involved in the overload scam. It has overloaded and dispatched 34 tonnes of cement throughout the state and has made fake documents and invoices to hide overloading. (ground (h) @ page 19) (a) Company has not indulged in any overload scam. All the accused have been discharged from offences under the IPC. (para 35 of reply at page 59, also see page 751-754-Annexure R44) 4. It is also submitted that on account of amendment in Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957, mining lease which were granted under the Act, were deemed to be granted for a period of 50 years and this has not been controverted in any manner by any one. 5. We are of the view that all the counsels have jointly requested the Court for disposing of this matter and if needed, leaving the liberty to the parties to approach the Court by way of fresh petition after first bringing it notice to the State Authorities. The circumstances so warrants, we dispose of this petition with liberty, as contents and answers in tabular form clearly indicate that at many stages the litigations are going on and Competent Authorities and Adjudicatory Authorities are in seisin of the matter. Therefore, pendency of this petition would not in any manner serve any other purpose. Hence, by leaving liberty to all the concerned, we dispose of this petition at this stage.