IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 940 of 2008 (M/S) Trilok Singh, S/o Shri Sunder Singh, R/o Chauhan Transport Pauri Road, Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Industrial Development, Secretariat, Dehradun and another. …Respondents. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State- respondents. Date June 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Sri G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The only prayer made in the present writ petition is that the respondents be directed by a writ of mandamus to take a decision on the renewal application 23-09-2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner, on 23-01-2001, he moved an application before the respondent no. 2 for grant of mining lease for mining of Balu, Bajri and Boulder and the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years vide order/ letter dated 15-6- 2002 and consequently a lease agreement dated 22.6.2002 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. Before expiry of the period of mining lease, the petitioner submitted an application on 13-8-2006 to Tehisldar Satpuli for obtaining certified copy of relevant documents for making an application for renewal of the mining lease. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application on 23-9-2006 to the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal-respondent no. 2 for renewal of the mining lease. According to the petitioner, the S.D.M. submitted his report for renewal of the mining lease and forwarded the application to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, in turn, made recommendation on 16-10-2006 to the Secretary, Industrial Development, Government of Uttarakhand for taking decision on the application of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the District Magistrate for second time and the District Magistrate again sent his recommendation to the Secretary concerned on 24-3-2007 vide Annexure No. 7, but no decision has been taken on the application of the petitioner (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and the same is still pending. In the circumstances of the case, the respondent no. 1 is directed to take a decision on the application for renewal of mining lease of the petitioner (Annexure No. 1), in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP