M/S Tayang Sand Mines Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:58749

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶6

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.12.04 19:12:48 +0530

¶7

WPC No. 1603 of 2025

¶8

M/s Pamgarh Sand Mines Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Rahul Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, S/o Kamal Kishor Agrawal, R/o House No. 1003, Gujarati Colony, Saradar Vallabh Bhai Patel Ward No. 5, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Geology And Mining Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Director Mining Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 4, First And Second Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Deputy Director Mining Department, District Raigarh (CG)

¶14

The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

The Mining Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

--- Respondents

¶17

&

¶18

2

¶19

WPC No. 1605 of 2025

¶20

M/s Tayang Sand Mines Through Its Proprietor Ahmed Raza, Aged About 47 S/o Sheikh Azim, R/o Ward No. 25, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶21

--- Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Geology And Mining Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.

¶24

The Director Mining Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan, Block-4, First And Second Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶25

The Deputy Director Mining Department, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶26

The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶27

The Mining Officer Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.)

--- Respondents

For Petitioner

For Respondents

: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Addl. Advocate General

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

03/12/2025

¶35

As identical issue is involved in above two writ petitions, they

¶36

are being heard together and are disposed by this common order.

¶37

Petitioner has filed petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶38

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be please to

¶39

issue an appropriate writ/directions/orders quashing the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-25) in the interest of justice, as the same is contrary to law, and

¶40

3

¶41

has been passed overreaching the provisions of law.

¶42

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner for sand mines allocated to the petitioner and located at Khasra No.1 Rakba 4.880 hectare situated at village Pamgarh Tahsil Kharsiya District Pamgarh situated at Pamgarh (Mand River) under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand ( Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019, in light of the extension order dated 22.03.2023 issued by the Director (Mining).

¶43

10.3. Any other relief with this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶44

10.4. cost of the filing of the petition may given to the petitioner. “

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.1 for auction of sand mines located in Raigarh, petitioner submitted bid for grant of sand mine lease under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019 (for short ‘the Rules of 2019’) and petitioner was declared preferred bidder. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of approvals from respective departments of the State. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of environment clearance on 16.7.2021, however, environment clearance certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority within

¶46

4

¶47

reasonable time and therefore, invoking provisions under Rule 7 (4) of the Rules of 2019, petitioner submitted an application for extension of period for fulfilling conditions of Letter of Intent. The authority concerned while considering application for extension of time, vide order dated 12.4.2022 extended the period upto 11.4.2022 only. Aggrieved with which petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.2Director, Mining, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Raipur which was decided on 22.3.2023 in favour of petitioner; period was extended till grant of environment clearance certificate and the case of petitioner was remanded back to respondent No.4-Collector. He also contended that while proceeding for grant of quarry lease was pending consideration, new rules known as “Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2023” (for short ‘the Rules of 2023’) came into force w.e.f. 19.1.2023. After coming into force of the Rules of 2023, respondent No.2 issued clarificatory letter dated 29.3.2023 observing that proceeding issued for grant of quarry lease under the Rules of 2019 is to be concluded keeping in mind the provisions of the Rules of 2019 only. Pending consideration grant of quarry lease, environment clearance certificate was issued in favour of petitioner on 20.11.2023. Respondent No.5-Mining Officer vide order dated 3.1.2024 taking note of Rule 16 of the Rules

¶48

5

¶49

of 2023 has repealed the proceedings for grant of quarry lease initiated pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2021 under the Rules of 2019, which is contrary to the letter dated 29.3.2023 issued by respondent No.2-Director and therefore, petitioner submitted an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2024 against which petitioner preferred second appeal before respondent No.1-Secretary which was also dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2025.

¶50

He contended that decision/observation made by the Director in letter dated 29.3.2023 was in accordance with law, which can be gathered from Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2025 (for short ‘the Rules of 2025’) wherein the Rule Making Authority has granted benefit to persons whose proceedings are pending under the Rules of 2019 and Rules of 2023. Therefore, writ petition may be allowed.

¶51

Learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that it is not in dispute that proceeding initiated for grant of quarry lease of subject area under the Rules of 2019 was pending consideration till new rules came into force on 19.1.2023. He contended that under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2023 there is specific provision that all the proceedings pending under earlier Rules will be

¶52

6

¶53

repealed and accordingly the authorities taking note of said provision have passed an order that proceeding which are initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Government and are pending consideration, shall stand repealed as soon as the Rules of 2023 came into force and as such, there is no error in the decision making process. He, however, submits that if petitioner is pressing upon Rule 6 (3) and 19 (2) of the Rules of 2025 to submit that under new rules, protection has been granted to the proceedings pending under the Rules of 2019 and the Rules of 2023, then petitioner may approach the authority.

¶54

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in the facts of case, petitioner may be permitted to approach authority concerned by way of filing application/representation in light of Rule 6 (3) and 19 (2) of the Rules of 2025 and also prays for a direction to concerned authority to consider and decide the said application at the earliest within specified time.

¶55

I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶56

Considering the facts of case, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, the writ petitions, at this stage, are disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh application/representation before the respondent No.1 under

¶57

7

¶58

Rule 6 (3) and 19 (2) of the Rules of 2025 for redressal of grievance as raised in this writ petition. If such an application/representation is submitted by petitioner, the same be considered and decided by respondent No.1 in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application/representation, without being prejudiced with the orders passed earlier.

¶59

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

roshan/-

M/S Tayang Sand Mines v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tayang Sand Mines v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemsagar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Upendra Kumar Chawda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Prasad Pal Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Pamgarh Sand Mines Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Aadishakti Paswan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangalu Kosariya Vs Executive Director