^ V .1- t' E BENCH : HON'BLE SHR1 S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETiTiON iC) N0.5333 OF 2006 Sarita Bafana, W/o Shri Moti Chand Bafana, aged about 46 years, Mines owner, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund (C.G.) Vs. ^K 2. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Mines, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Under Secretary, Department of Minera! Resourees, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Coilecfor (Mines Section), Mahasamund Mining Officer, Office of the Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) Revenue Inspector (Mining Section), Office of the Collector, Mahasamund Chief Executive Officer, Village Panchayat, Ghodari, DistricS- Mahasamund (C.G.). Shri Prashant Jaiswa!, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, learned counse! for the petitionsr. Shri Sanjay S. AgrawaS, learned G.A. for the State ofC.G. and its authorities. (Passed on 6tn October, 2006) In this writ petition, the action of the respondents refusing to renew tease has been assailed. It was contended by the leamed counsei for the petitioner that in terms of Rule 26 of the Minerai Concession RuSes, 1960 -<a- (for short 'the Rules'), the State Government is duty bound to give an opportunity of being heard to an applicant before refusing to renew a mining iease and in the insSant case such opportun'rty was not given to the petitioner. tt was also contended that the reasons stated by the Government in the Impugned order that ifthe mining iease is granted, Mahanadi river would be damaged, is also not well founded, because, the subsequent reporls of the Government authorities themselves would show that quarrying in She vicinity of the banks of the river are not causing any danger to the river. There is no need for the Court to appreciate the above reason stated by the State Government in the impugned order, and it is for them to appreciate whether the subsequent reports of the Govemment authorities have indicated to the contrary. Suffice it to state that in terms of sub-Ruie (1) of Rute 26 of the Rules before refusing renewai of the mining iease to the petitioner, the State Govemment ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and since that has not been done in the instant case, on that short ground, the writ petition deserves to be aliowed. (2) In the resuit, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The State Government te directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewa! of the lease de novo and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of being head to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, w'rthin a period of three months. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ;/