w F (.cj No baa/(vim (Pe‘tmon under Arflcle 226 of The ConshN’hon cf India) Pen‘honet‘ kedar Lnandr'akar, Age 38 year's, 5/0 Shri Nand Kamar Chandrakar, Pmfession:- Query Lease Holder, R/o Viiiuge—Bar'baspun Gram Panchuyaf Badge-.6, Tahgii Mahasamma‘, DisWiéf Ma'm-xsah‘auna' (CG) RespondgnE 1. The Sfafe of C.G‘ Through fhe Secrefary. Déparf'meru? 6% Géaiagy & Mini'rig, D.K.5. Manfralaya Bhawan, Raipur (C6) True Dirac-Tor, Depar‘fmem‘ af Geobg‘y & MEning, D.K.S. Man'rmlaya Bhawan, Raipur' (C6) The Cé§1ée?éF, Mar-sasammia‘, D§§%‘rvie? Mahasamund (CG) au‘résn gn§rmu 5H) J'r‘i’r‘i Keshav 5hai‘mc‘x, R/G Wlage Ghodam (Ghoradi). Tohsi! Mahasamund, Dis‘fric‘? Mahés‘ému‘nd (CG) (Wrongly men‘i'ioned DisHz Basw‘ar, in impugned 6Fa‘ér) Pres‘em‘: Mr. J.A. Lohani: Advocafe : For The peTifioner. Mr. Alok BaksW, Govt Advocufe : Far- respondem" No.1 'ro 3 Mr. Vogesh Pandey', Advocafe 1 . For resgmnden? No.4 ,- u~ VS h) ()A 4> 0 R A L o iz i3 c R (Passed on 17*“ November, 2009) Wi‘rh The consenf of fhe parfies, fhe matter was finaliy heard. . me pe'ri'rioner has filed fhis pefifion and prayed for seffing aside fhe ordar da‘red 14.10.2008 (AnneXure P-l) passed by respondenf No.2-Direafor, Department of Geology & Mining, Raipur i_n Appeal Case No.45/O7. 3. Grievance of The pefifioner is fha‘r he filed an applicai'ion for renewal of quarry mining lease before respondenf No.3—Collecl‘or, Mahasamuncl. The Sanctioning Aufhorify called for lhe reporf from The concerned Tehsildar along with opinion of Gram Panchaya‘l' Barbaspur. 'lo decide his applicafion. Respondenf No.4 had also applied for quarry mining lease of fhe same plot Earlier Gram Panchayaf had passed a resolufion in favour of The pe‘iiiioner as well as responden‘l No.4, however, subsequenfly anal-her resolufion was passed by ihe Gram Sabha canceling iis ‘no objecfion cer‘i'ificm‘e’ earlier gran‘l‘ed in favour of iresponden‘i- No.4 and on 1he basis of which applicafion of respondem‘ No.4 was rejeci'ed and mining lease was sancfioned in favour of fhe peii'iioner vide order dafed 14.11.2007. Page 2 Responden? No.4 preferred an appeal aga'msf The order of fhe Collecfor before respondem‘ No.2 and The same was aliowed vide impugned order of Annexure P-l dafed 14.10.2008 and fhe order of fhe Collecfor sanctioning mining lease in favour of the pefii‘ioner was se‘r aside and The moi-ter- was remanded 1‘0 fhe Collec‘i‘or 1'0 decide the applications preferred by fhe peiifioner and fhe responden‘l' No.4 afresh wi‘ihin a period of ‘rhree mon‘i‘hs in accordance wifh the Ruies afier affording opportunify of hearing fo fhe parfies. Learned counsel appearing for fhe pe‘i‘ifioner submits fhaf quarry mining lease was granfed fo fhe pei’i‘i‘ioner after following The procedure prescribed under ‘i'he C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (For brevi‘l'y ‘fhe Ruies'). The pefifion‘er was eni‘ifled for preferenfial righf agains‘i‘ responden‘l' No.4 as per provisions of Rule 25 of fhe Rules. The pefifioner has already made huge invesfmenf in fhe mining business affer fhe quarry mining iease was sanci'ioned in his favour and offer execufion of 'i'he agreement He fur‘l'her submii‘fed fhaf Though revision under Rule 58 of fhe Rules iies fo-i‘he Sfafe Governmenf againsf The order of Annexure P—l, however, iT is seTTled principle of law fhaf rule of exclusion of wriT JurisdicTion by availabilify of an alTernafive remedy is a ruie of discreTion and not one of compulsion. ln appropriaTe cases, fhe High CourT shall noT refuse To invoke Jurisdiction on The ground of availabiliTy of The alTernaTive. Reliance is placed in The maTTer of Harbanslal Sahnia and anoTher Vs. Indian Oil CorporaTion LTd. & oThers reporfed in AIR 2003 SC 2120 and Virendra Sahney and anoTher Vs. Dis‘h'icT Officer/CollecTor, Mau and oThers reporTed in AIR 1997 Allahabad 82. . On The oTher hand, learned counsel for The respondenfs submiTTed Thaf in The insTanT case The appellaTe auThoriTy exercising iTs JurisdicTion under The Rules allowed The appeal preferred by respondenT No.4, seT aside The order passed by The CollecTor and remanded The maTTer To The CollecTor for fresh decision wiThin a period of Three monThs afTer affording opporTuniTy of hearing To The parTies in accordance wiTh The Rules. In view of availabiliTy of alTernaTive sTaTuToryremedy of filing revision under Rule 58 of The Rules The insTanT peTiTion is noT mainTainable. . I have heard learned counsel for The parTies. I have perused The pleadings in The wriT peTiTion, The order impugned and oTher documen‘l‘s available on record. . . 8. From fhe facfs pleaded in fhe pefifian and 141a documenfs available on record, if appears Tha‘r fhe pe'mioner‘ and responder)? No.4 had appiied for quarry mining lease on a parficular pio'r. Applicafion prefer-red by The pefi‘rioner‘ was aiiowed and a'r 0f respondenf No.4 was rejecfed. Appeal preferred by responden'r No. has been allowed by fhe appella're aufhorlfy an 'l'he grouna Thaf e order has been passed wlfhou‘l' affording oppor'lunl‘l'y of hearing To responden'r No.4. fl 9. If is sefed principle of low tho? fhe rule of exclusion of wril' jurisdicfion by avoilobilify of an allernofive remedy is a rule of discrefion and no? one of compulsion and in an approgoria‘l'e case, in spife of availabili‘ry of allera‘l‘ive remedy, “the Courf may sfill exercise ifs wrif Jurisdicfion, as held in fhe Judgment ci'l'ed by fhe pe‘l‘i‘iioner himself. However, on ihe fads of The preseni- case: I do noi' find any excepfional circumsi‘ance which could persuade me +0 permil' The peii‘rioner ‘ro sfroigh‘iaway approach ‘l‘his Court under Ar'iicle 226 of The Consfitufion of India wi‘l'houf exhausl'ing ihe al’rernai'ive remedy provided undr Rule 58 of The Qules. 1. Accordingly, fhe pe‘l'il-ion is dismissed, however, reserving liber‘h/ fo fhe peiifioner 1'0 avail of ihe remedy under The Rule 58 of The Rules. / / / fh 4 fh e 0 /