IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCCNo.^111/2010 itl APPLICANT ^Sr? ..-••'^'.'^^"AW .•^:-::^••'^ft^ ^^..'•••••"l" ^^^ s»s Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Mandhar Cement Factory, P.0.: Mandhar, DIstt.: Raipur (CG) Through its General Manager Ravinder Singh, S/o. Jograj Singh Aged about 56 years. VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS : l.Union of India, Through Secretary Department of Mines and Minerals, New Delhi. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). '-^ 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Minerals, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 4. The Collector (Revenue) Raipur District Kutchery Square, Raipur (CG). 5. Mining Officer, District of Raipur, Collectorate Building, Raipur (C.G.) 6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tehsil-Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) E A s 7. M/s. Gangotri Limes Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Ganga Ram Sharma, S/o. Late Udaynarayan Sharma, Lakhe School Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING RRVTSION APPLICATION ^^f^ ^^^.t^ ^^ /:'g^ ^ ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR APPLICANT RESPONDENTS M.C.C.N0.411 OF 2010 Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others (Application for grant of extension oftime in filing revision application) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the applicant. Ms Smita Ghai, standing counsel forthe Union of India. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. QRDER(QRAL) (Passed on this 12th dayofAugust, 2010) 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this application to enhance the time limit of further three months to file the revision application before the Central Government in compliance of the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.4866 of 2007 (Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of tndia & Others}. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that looking to the procedural requirements of sanction from various authorities, it became difficult for the applicant for filing the revision application within the time limit. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the time limit may be extended to file revision application before the revisional authority. The applicant has not made out any case by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons in not filing the revision application well within time as per the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.4866 of 2007 (Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Others), as the interim relief granted on 30-8-2007 during pendency of the writ petition was directed to remain in operation for a further period till the application for interim reliefwas considered and decided orsixweeks, whichever was earlier. Accordingly, the application is rejected. (f Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge