In a writ petition regarding delayed disposal of a mining lease application filed in 2001, the High Court of Chhattisgarh declined to issue a time-bound direction for disposal of a pending revision petition but observed that the Revisional Authority should dispose of the matter at an early date due to the old cause of action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
<br>
rX
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
W.P.(C). 6895 of 2010
PETITIONER
Deepak Kumar Gupta, sonof Shri Bholanath Gupta, aged about 52 years, resident of 97-A, Plot No. 10 & 11, East Bhilai, District Durg
(C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Appearance :
Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate forthe petitioner.
Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents 1 & 2.
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4.
ORAL ORDER (08.03.2011)
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J.
Heard.
Petitioner- Deepak KumarGupta filed an application for grant of mining lease, under Mineral Concessicn Rules, 1960, over the land bearing khasra no. 2820 area 14.50 hectares situated in village Thanod, Tahsil & District Durg, C.G. The said application was filed in the year \ 2001. Since the said application was not disposed of for a long time, the
W.P.fQ No. 6895 of 2010
:.2:"^ M '^ H&%. t'.;:...-^':"^.•^'s^l^-'^l~\ J /IB '/:;^-.,......1^-"-1
petitioner filed W.P. No. 2703/2003 which was disposed of by order dated 5.9.2003 with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease was dismissed by the concerned authority on 4.2.2004. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order. The Revisional Authority set-aside the impugned order in revision and remanded the matter by order dated 23.12.2005 to the State Government to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's application was again dismissed by the State Government vide order dated 8.6.2010. Against such order the petitioner again filed a revision which was registered as Case No. 12/(08)/2010/RC-II. In the said revision, theRevisional Authority issued a memo on 12.10.2010to the State Government calling upon to file their para-wise comments on the averments made in the revision petition.
Mr. Sharma, learned counselappearing on behalfofthe petitioner, submits thateven after receiving the memo dated 12.10.2010, the State Government has not filed any comment/reply in the said revision till date. He submits that on one hand, the matter is being delayed by the State Government by not filing reply and on the other hand a lease of the subject land has been granted in favour of respondent No.3. He submits that, as the matter is pending before the Revisional Authority since 24.6.2010, and it relates to a cause of action pertaining to the year 2001, the Revisional Authority may be directed to dispose of the revision petition within the stipulated period granted by this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, oppose these arguments. They submit that looking to the fact that the revision was filed on 24.6.2010 and thenotices were issued to the State on 12.10.2010, no such delay has occurred on which any direction is required from this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that a long time has not elapsed after filing the second revision on 24.6.2010, I am not inclined to issue any time bound direction at this
W.P/0 No. 6895 of 2010
!.4' ^ iii^i
-^:
stage. However 1 would like to dispose of this writ petition with the observation that since the matter relates to an old cause of action pertaining to the year 2001 , the Revisional Authority shall try to dispose of the same at an early date.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
No cost.
Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of given the long pendency of the underlying mining lease application since 2001.
Whether the Revisional Authority should be directed to dispose of the pending revision petition within a stipulated time.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Kumar Gupta
State of Chhattisgarh
The Collector (Mining Department), District Durg
Gram Panchayat, Thanod
Union of India
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
