5^1 HIOH^QURT^QFJUDreATURE CHHATTISeMW: BtLASPUS SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRIS.R. NAYAK, C.J. W&ITPSTiTIQN (Ct N0.6878 OF MOT PETITIONER RES^NDENTS Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, S/e. Shit h4adho Prasad Sahu, aged aboid 30 years, OccupaUon - Mining Contractor, R/o. C/o. Shri Jugal tflshoreSahu, Vfillage - Toria, Post - Bhurka, Distb-ict - Raipur (C.G.) State of ChhatBsgarh Thrwigh the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Mantrataya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, through Sscretaiy, Ministry of Mines, Govemment of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Dethi. Competent Auttiority, Minisby of Mines, Govemment of India, (undN section 54 of the Mineral Concession rules, 1960) Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Coltector, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Ravindra Kumar ^arwal, S/o. Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal, Age not laiown, fyo. Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Vipul Jain, S/o. not known, aged not known, R/o. L-114, Sector-3, Ge^anjaTi Nagar, Ralpur(C.G.) Shri Sanjeev ^arwal, S/o. Shri R.N. ^arwal, Aged about not known, R/o. Sector-3, Devendra Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) Shri Sul^at Day, S/Q. Shri S.C. Dey, Aged not known, R/o. Pandri, Ralpur (C.G.). Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Sr. Advocate with Shri AU Asgar, teamed counsel for U»epetitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. for respondent No.1. ORALORDER (Passedon 13"' November, 2006) The petitioner and the respondents 5 to 8, in all fhye, applied fer grant of mining lease to quarry lime stone in an area admeasuring 35.089 hectares comprised in various Khasara numbers <rf village Ldpur, fatwari ^ -s- Halka No.95, Raipur Tahsll and Di^rict. The State ©ovemment entertaining the applicaUons granted mining teases vide s order datod 23.04.2003 marked as Annexure P/2 to the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 and since then all ofthem have been exploiting the minerals. (2) The petiUoner by contsnding that minimum area for grant <rf mining lease in terms of Clause (c) of Rule 22 (D) ot the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (forshort fhe Rules') shall not be less than 4 hectares, andthe State Govemment of ChhatUsgarh ought not ftave granted less than 4 hectares of land in respect of mineral deposte other than those specified under Clauses (a) and (b) as provided under Ctause (c) of Rule 22 (D) of the Rules, preferred a revlsion to the Centrat Govemment. The Central Govemment by ite order dated 19.062006, dismissed the revision applicalion filed by the peUttoner by observing that the Government of Chhattisgarh for proper and better e)q»loitatiwi of minerals hasleased less than four heetares of land in fawour of each of the applicants, and that there was no warrant to Interfere w i ttie grant <rf leases. Hence, ttiis writ petition by fte aggrieved petiUoner. (3) 1 heard leamed counsel for ths parfles. The vay contention which was urged before the Central Govemment was reiterated before this Court atso. It is true that in terms of clause (c) of Rute 22 (D) of ttie Rules, minimum area for grant of mining tease in respect of all mineral deposits other than those speclfied in clauses (a)(b)shall not bs less than four hectares. The lease grarrted in favour of ttie petttioner and respondente 5 to 8 was in resped of the mtneral deposlts covered by clause (c) and in that view of the matter, each of the afqaltcants oughtto have been granted more than four hectares of land. DespBs the apparent lie o» siusiqaid efBejo A|UO tou p|noM tj 'SOOZ -iBeA StB uj )|oeq ABAA apeui luejS eift wfineu ie ^es ot a>iaM siinoo stn H 'eiun jo soueisip siift iv •s|er^)i^pu! »ftfo jnoA^f ui inuu psijed useq seq uoj}aj3S!p sii ui seojnossj IBuniai umo SH noitbo 01 ateis 8t|l ^o eBeijAud 041 •uoiieijoidxa jo^ pue| p S8JB1301 M^ UBlft 8JOUI Ifflm ved pjnoi<s SWQ 8i|} pue paAM>||e sq pinoys 9STO| SuiKjjenb ^<v uoffeoiiddB siq 'esjnoo w }q6u p jewBiu e se tetn isisui o»»UB3!|ddeAue jo MBjj pa^eA eift tou si y •s»ue3!|ddelenpuupui sift y> usueq 9>fl •i°K l°u pue aws SIB ^o lysuaq alfl •'oi s! ssjepay jnot uetft SM| aq (ou ||ei|S (a) ssneto Aq paieAoo sijsodap |Ejeuiui sqi o| pjefiaj ifim esesi Suiuiiu jo vveiS jo( eeje uinui|U!iu aij} leifl uoi}duosajd witfo jiBuaq sifl »BIBpuiiu <ui 0} aieedde 1.1 '.ISAOSJOW •SUIB ^o eoueisip Sjtfl ye eswBMauB <ue aaieui <q pjeeq eq »ouueo}uej6 941 y> aouensjnd u( sijsodap |Bieujui eifl floidxe o( uasoyo BuiAeq jauoi(j»edsqj. •uisifl o( ^BO||B seaiB eifl ui ssaiueiB sift p ((aea Aq pefioidxs uaaq seq s|isodep lejsujut BUIUIIU eifl y> yed ^qeiepisuoa pue goOZ J8e^ stU "! )13e<1 AeM epeui ejem spjeifi 8i<j. -siisodsp i&ieuiui Bugioidxa uaaq eAeq S(uej6 aij} jp eauen&ind ui 9 o( 5 siuspuodssj se ||am se jauoBjtsd sift leqi uoipnflsu! UO linOQ 8tft p|0( 8l< pue jnoABj siq ui epeuu »UBJB 941 p eouensjnd U! s(isod^> |GJ9U!tu 6uB!0|dxa useq seq lusip 8114 jetfleyM J8uoi(i}sd aqi A>I |»suno3 psujesi aifl pa)|se ^ipsiujod | 'Buueait y> s&inoo wy u| •»sajeiuiayqnd a( Ainfu! jo ^iitasiiu ouqnd Aue puy (ou op | 'asneoeq •suai p 83UB(S(p siqi IB sesesi p »UBJB 9t# ifflm ejapstui a| psuipui yau IUB | 'sasasd ai|i jo^ issunoa psujesi pjeey GUIABH (t-) •8SB3 eiRp uo!»Bn)js-spB^jei|noedaifl ui 8011^0 aoueisjp siifl te SZZ sp!W wpun ui dsis <^ tuaipacbo pue a(Bydojdde a ti jsqtsqm si eipui fi uogniffsuoo eifl jo 922 apyv ^spun .isMod AieuoBajosjp BUISIOJSXS a|!i|»ynoo siqi .rosi uoiiejepisuoo joi uoiisenb aift 'a|ny eqi jo iioeajq 2-- -// grantees resulting in avoidable complications and IIUgations. Looking from that angle atso ttis not a fit case tp step in under Articte 226 of the Constituh'on of India. It is accordingly dismissed. Noco^. Sd/- Chief Justice