ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for following reliefs: (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the communication dated 26.04.2017 holding the same to be illegal, unjust and arbitrary. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent No. 3 to implement the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2 in its true letter and spirit as expeditiously as possible. (D) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of the appeal, YOUR LORDSHIPS may by pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 not to allot the quarry lease about the area in question to any other person. (E) Grant such other and further reliefs in favour of petitioner as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is resident of village Chital, Taluka Amreli and was interested in obtaining quarry lease for the purpose of mining sand at village Shihod, Taluka Jetpur Pavi, District Vadodara and accordingly, made an application in proscribed form before Collector, Vadodara. Petitioner in turn received a letter dated 4.10.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remove deficits and infirmities in the application which the petitioner has removed. However, the request for application for quarry lease came to be rejected vide order dated 27.4.2011 mainly on the reason that defects in the application were not cured. 3. Aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner preferred a revision application before the Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2, on 20.6.2011 and said revision application came to be allowed vide order dated 11.5.2016 substantially on the ground that since deficiencies in the application were cured on 24.12.2010, which was not reflecting in the impugned order of the Collector, the revision application was allowed. Pursuant to the said order passed in revision application, a mere paper work was to be undertaken after completion of necessary formalities, but there was no response from the respondent authority in any form and as such when insisted upon, petitioner received a letter on 11.9.2017 from Geologist, Chhota Udepur, informing the petitioner that it is not possible to implement the order of the Appellate Authority and said order deserves to be taken in review by the Appellate Authority and as such a letter dated 26.4.2017 addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 was supplied and as such, since petitioner is fighting legal battle from the year 2010 and was in receipt of such kind of communication, instead of implementing the order of Appellate Authority, left with no alternate but to approach this Court by way of afore-mentioned petition. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Apurva K. Jani appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was waiting for quite some time to see that the order passed by Appellate Authority would be implemented. But, instead of implementing, though there is no power of review, subordinate authority has issued impugned communication whereby it appears to the petitioner that request would be rejected despite the order being passed in his favour. Mr. Jani has further submitted that it has come to the notice of petitioner that in very same Survey number after filing of present petition, the authority has granted lease to one person, a copy whereof is very much available to the petitioner and as such has submitted that discriminatory stand has been taken by the authority, hence the communication under challenge requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has further submitted that apart from that, while passing the impugned communication, resolutions/circulars which have been relied upon have never been served upon the petitioner, which has adversely affected the right of making effective representation and as such, said circumstance is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, in any case, impugned communication is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hence, in any case, impugned communication is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta appearing on behalf of the authority has opposed the petition by indicating that the stand taken by Collector, Chhota Udepur is not erroneous rather it is permissible in view of the fact that a topography of the site for which lease is sought is coming within prohibited zone of 500 meter and area is overlapping as is clearly found from the measurement-sheet and said site is coming within this 500 meter area, as it is abutting to State Highway, lease is not possible to be granted and that opinion was formulated by the Collector on the basis of two circulars dated 27.12.2012 and 20.1.2014 and that being the position, since it being a mere recommendation to take up review, it is not possible to be construed that any decision is taken by respondent Collector. It is in the form of recommendation and Collector, Chhota Udepur has not assumed power of review. 7. In any case, learned advocate Mr. Apurva K. Jani on instruction has submitted that pursuant to the impugned communication, review proceedings have been initiated and department has already undertaken hearing on 20.5.2022 through video conferencing and same being attended by the petitioner. Said hearing was also communicated through a communication dated 7.5.2022. It was informed vide communication dated 15.11.2022 that review application still not decided and it is pending before the authority and as such, taking note of such telephonic instruction from the authority, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta has submitted that if this grievance which has been voiced out today is subsisting, petitioner may have an opportunity to represent before the authority where review proceedings are pending since it is yet not decided and as such requested that since the petitioner has already participated in the review proceedings, all permissible contentions can be raised and can well be examined by authority and as such, in view of this peculiar background of facts, petition may not be entertained. 8. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that no-doubt, Appellate Authority has passed an order on 11.5.2016 but, subsequent communication dated 26.4.2017 issued by Collector, Chhota Udepur is indicating that Collector has not assumed power of review nor has tried to overreach the process of Appellate Authority, but on the basis of circular and measurement-sheet has recommended and drawn the attention of authority that order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 11.5.2016 deserves consideration in review since two circulars coupled with measurement-sheet are clearly indicating that no lease is permissible and said aspect having not been dealt with by Appellate Authority, it was brought to the notice by the Collector to examine it or if possible, take in review and as such it is not a decision, it is merely a recommendation. 9. Further, it appears from the record that pursuant to the impugned communication, respondent authority has already undertaken the process of review as it is reflected from the communication dated 15.11.2022 in which petitioner has already been granted an opportunity to represent on 20.5.2022 and on telephonic instructions from Mr. Narendra Patel, Geologist, Chhota Udepur, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta has submitted that petitioner has already represented in the review proceedings and it is also reflecting from the instruction of learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta that till date, no decision is taken on the review application and as such, when this be the situation, instead of issuing writ in this peculiar background of facts, it would be apt and appropriate to issue suitable direction and to pass below-mentioned order which would meet the ends of justice whereby petitioner may be permitted to raise all permissible contentions before the reviewing authority, including maintainability of it since as on date, no decision is taken. Hence, Court deems it proper to pass following order: ORDER: (1) Petitioner is permitted to raise all permissible contentions before the respondent authority who has undertaken the process of review, including the contention about maintainability and non-supply of relevant material in the form of relevant circulars. Hence, Court deems it proper to pass following order: ORDER: (1) Petitioner is permitted to raise all permissible contentions before the respondent authority who has undertaken the process of review, including the contention about maintainability and non-supply of relevant material in the form of relevant circulars. (2) As and when such representation and contentions will be submitted, the authority who is taking up review proceedings is directed to consider the same in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. (3) Since this issue is relating to the request of 2010, it is directed that decision on pending review application be taken as early as possible, preferably within a period of SIX WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. (4) It is needless to say that reviewing authority shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by disposal of the present petition and shall take an independent decision on the basis of the material available on record. (5) It is further clarified that if any decision adverse to the petitioner is taken in the review proceedings, same will be amenable to be challenged before appropriate forum in accordance with law and disposal of the present petition would not come in the way of petitioner to challenge the same. 10. With aforesaid observations and clarification, present petition stands DISPOSED OF.