-HG—78 W SIKSSWW 4 2-^ ^SET •<ii<iidq, eitil'y'is, [sioiyy r--iW--ft--^-&------ 3n^[TiRT(Tpf3^r) ^OTW^feant^ APPfcLLANI: PETITEONER RESPONDENTS; _\ 1. Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addi" resDondents. The appeilant has preferr^ dated 15 Gecember, 2008 pcs4 iecrned Sinqie Judoe has diSmisse<|i cnit«I<r]<<1i *iww ^ fe^ <Fq+$i< ^aifinsii^i beepak Kumar eupTa, 5on of Late Sholenath Supta, Aged 50 years, ftesident of Kaloana House, Station Road, &urg (C6) ersus- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Principat Secretary, Ministry of AAinera! Resources Departmerit, &.K. Bhawan, Raipur (C6) The Cotiecto", AAining Department, Durg, District Dur'g (C6) for the appeliant. iona! Advocate ©eneraifor tha State/ :d'this writ appeal against the order* ed in W.P.(C) No.6952/2008 whereby the petition. , '. ^ • ;+ <a€, isifi: •^, ^SK^ I-HG—78 ~T5E[ «l||<)|<»jq^®t||y<|6,[s|Cliyy 3fl^[ TI?RT (1pf3«I^I) sn^i ^r !<-t •gsn sii^i grtira? -^ gnefly ^tated farit^ 6f •riAfe| grant of mlnlng iease for extra< over COT o.rea of 14.50 hectares ad iaeent to the iand for which leafe The appiication of the appellant yide orde,- dated 4-2-2004. The | "ejection befors the Centra! 6ov«| short 'the Tribunal') under Rule 5'{l Tribunal ailowed the revision vide P/4) and the case was remanded ti| to reconsider the renewa! of sninl per 'aw. The Stdte 6overnment upon the appeilant to produce, th^ (for short TB,W) regarding ayai! appeilant disputed the same on 1{ie been submitted along with prosp4< for getting the "eport from IBM. deciding the appSscat'on of ths ap cir-cumstances, the writ petition w|as *i<<(<ri-41i Tn3T?if ^f 'fs1^ ^i'^i't ^; sffiiii an^si ? ^ ^u jii! •£. |cd^fe d ?ndf Trt^q.ipSilfirtT dppiied tor "ion of moulding sand as major mineral in village Thano. The said area was |e was a!rendy granted to 1+ie appellan*. ^'as rejected by the State Sovsi'nment Irevision was filed against the order of •nment (Mining Tribunai) New belhi (for |l of 1+ie Mineral Concession Ru!es. The lit.s order dated 23-12-2005 (Annexure-- 1> th®State Sovernment with a direction |ig lease (spplication ot the appel!cu"t as fide its letter dated 19-10-2006:,ca'l!ed ^ report frow Indian Bureau of Mines ^bility of the semd in the a"ea. The |round that 1+ie report has already ;ctlng report and there is no necessity Howeyer, the Stote Sovernment is not ?e!Icnt and keeping itpending. In these fjled, 1tie '>»>...» c''35{S XI-HG—78 4 ^ ~3^ '^WM<i, &'»{w\6,hfiwy, 3II^T1T5RT (•^qf^sI^T) eamed Single Judge nas ci obssrvations:- 5) Be that as it may, si? the basis of submission the S+ate ffovernment des coliected by IBM for testi petitioner ought to samples coliected by I£ Thus, •riie prayer made resgondsnts be directed canno* be granted, at this s| hqve conipiied with the or^ firstand thereafterany dn Learned counsel for the ap^je of Ru!e 22 ofthe Minerc! Conces^i^ competent *o approve mining pltjn mentioned in the said rule. ftul the app'ication for grant of minin^ (A), the application of the appell months. There is no provisioh unc^ ^iRfepfrf iWRJf tf feCTt i|a|ts;l< ^sTRnaii^si |smissea me wriT peTiTion wirn foiiowing lce the Tribunal's order is on mc^de by the petitioner that if res the niining plan sampies in^ will be produced again. The produced the mir'irig p!an f)or decision on his application. l|>y the petitioner that the to consider his application ^age. The petitioner ought to [der passed by the Tribunal :an be passed." orifer llant subtr.iti'ed that as per sub rule 4A |on Rules, 1960, the State Soyernment is of open cast mines of the ffiinerals 3 (A) prescribes the perJod for decidittg iease and cs per sub rule (c) of Rule 6,3 was peouired to be decided within 12 e" the Minercil Concession Ruies or under 14nt + i".--^ "'^ w ^. ^^T ^:'-' XI-HE—78 ^ T^ •^i'i<iw:i, atil+i'is, fsKii'yy 3TI^TTR^ ('yt^'^q) olf Tfi.ines & iWinerai (Development & K| submit report from IBM regardin; exist a repor't regarding avaiiabilit^ On the othe" hand, learn^ submitted that the aDoiication iea.se was rejecteci on merits by preferred c reyision against tha On the issue of genuinity of the s\ submitted that after submission area may ogain be coliec+ed by Ig 6overnrnent, and sippropriate actie^ found as reported earljer in the o^ In yiew of the above subm.l Mining Tribunai, the appeliant was| coilected by IBM for testlng, by1| sample as deslred by the "esp ccDlica+ion'couSd not be.decided. Havina hecrd learned coun4 submission made by the cppeilant above, we are of the opinson °B) ^T't^f^^ 'wi^ff "^f 'fe^ <r>i-^.i< igulaT'ons) ACT ThaT rhe (^piicanT has to dvcilabilit/ of sand when there already (' of mouldinq sand. id counsei for the State/respondents the appellcmt for- prospecting mining the State iSovernment. Tne qipeliant trder of rejection before the Tribunal; |eport, iearned counsel for the appellant j;f mining plan samplss from the applied for resting, if so desired by' the State may be taken if clay percentage is not ttl lication. ^sion made by the appeilant before the directed to produce mining plan samples tiie appellant has not yet produced any mdent authorities and, therefore, his el for the parties, haying regard to the befora t'he Mining Tribunai as recorded leat'ned Single Judge was justifjed in 4 J-3 -HC—78 ~3^ •aww^, ®tfl'M'i<o,fq<ni'yy SII^T 'T?^ (1clf-l°<'i'Ef) •OTISII^ITWB' -5--4- i^l^filsstng +hs psulavn b^?—ds directina the resoondents to considjer We find no substance in thi dismissed and it is hereby dismisseiji. SdA Dhirendra Mishra Judge <=hi<tf?i*i1t ^Hffl^f? ^'lf§11^<f^l-^i< i;3jftF[3nt?i iig thA prayei" of •i+;e appcl'ant h|s flpplication, o;t this stage. writ appeal, the same deserves to Sd/- ^.GHANDRAKAR. Judge