Disposed

Mangni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2014WPC/1712/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the competent authority to examine the petitioner's complaint regarding nuisance from a crusher operation. The court held that the grievance did not involve specific allegations on mining lease terms but ordered the authority to check if the respondent (Mandeep Jaiswal) was operating in violation of lease conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to examine the operator's compliance with lease conditions and terms regarding the complained nuisance.

Mangni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Mining and Natural Resources | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

w CD m )

¶2

Single Bench

¶3

1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^AT

¶4

BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIOMC) N0?^1H1420 14.

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

«\‘g

¶7

Mangni wife of Late Krishna Yadav, aged about 50 years, occupation \W Agriculture, residence of Bhilai, Post Bariyo, P.Si and Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

V€rSUS

¶9

Respondents:

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)^Rajpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Tahsildar, Rajpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Mandeep Jaiswal, son of Sadanand Jaiswal, aged about 32 years, occupation Business, R/o village Bariyon, Post Bariyon, RS. Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERISI: As mentioned in the Cause title.

¶17

, PARTICULARS OF‘ THE RESPONDENTIS); As mentioned in the Cause title.

‘W XLHc—73 ‘ \"\ g

A1 ' W {D (Ti

WJQ

mmi‘a‘fw ammm	WWW	wafwWwwm ^waifgn§m $3???amw
’I‘umane	S Shri C. J. K. Rao, couns Shri Siddharth Rathod, the State, on advance ^copy. Heard. The petitioner has tiled official respondents ^{to enqui} against the respondent ^No.5— After going through ^the the petitioner, it appears tha personal in nature. There is violation of any terms and provisions of law governing However, considering t certain nuisance ^{in the mat} ordered that the competent‘ whether the respondent accordance with the ^terms to him. With the aforesaid ob disposed off. B: Hon’ble Shri Manindra 01—09-2014	J. 1 for the petitioner/s. petition ^{and the notice}given ^by the grievance ^{mostly related to} no specific allegation regarding conditions of mining lease or and regulating mining activity. at the petitioner is complaining ^{er of operation of crusher,} it is authority shall examine as to ervation, the petition is finally Manindra ^{Mohan Shrivastava} Judge ohan Shrivastava 1S d conditions of the ^leasegranted operating crusher Sd/— eputy Government Advocate ^for is petition seeking direction ^to into the petitioner’s ^complaint ining Contractor.

Mangni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamra Ram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Balidas Berwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Jaganu Ram Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal

Shyam Kumar Gujrati Vs Board of Revenue,M.P. Ors.

Balchand Oswal And Ors. Vs State Govt.of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sukhiram and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.