Mr. S.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supporting the judgment under challenge and contended that the learned Appellate Court has committed no error of law in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. He submitted that the Courts below, in a way, have ensured the compliance of the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities, pursuant to the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Inviting attention of the Court towards the Appellate Order dated 07.06.1996 (Ex.4) and the Order dated 06.02.2007 (Ex.8) passed by the Additional Director (Mines) and Order dated 23.12.2005 (Ex.6) passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines), he contended that the Appellate Authorities constituted under the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, have time and again, found the plaintiff’s application to be competent, clearly holding that the same was not premature, directed the Mining Engineer to consider the same in accordance with law. He submitted that the said orders passed by the Appellate Authorities in the appeals filed by none other than the plaintiff herself, having attained finality, were binding on the Mining Engineer and he could not take a view contrary. However, when no order was passed despite the order dated 06.02.2007 (Ex.8), the plaintiff was left with no option, but to file the suit for mandatory injunction, seeking a direction to the defendants to allot Quarry No. 84 of Bhuri Beri to the plaintiff.
