——TOSra331 .^ c^ ^ ^-^^ \(7\x^-^:--" ,J^I°>-"" '.^^y' '^ klP ^^^^- '^L^"" ../^'' ^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1'^S / 2010 In the matter of: PETITIONER </ 1. M/s Saraswati Minerals, Through its Proprietor Nikhil Agrawal, Aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Dinesh Agrawal, Village- Timarlaga, Tehsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ^2. Shri Nikhil Agrawal, Aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Dinesh Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ^ Versus RESPONDENTS ^. k. State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Through its Secretary, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, The Mining Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ^^4. The Director, Directorate, Mines and Minerals, Sonakhan Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRIT PETmON (C) No. 1853 of2Q10 PETITIQNER : M/s. Saraswati Minerals & another. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'blc Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 21st day of June, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, on mstructions, subniits that tihe petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits. However, he prays that the respondent-authorities may be directed to consider and decide the application dated 07.10.2007 (Annexure P/10) as expeditiously as possible. 2. Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for fhe State/respondents submits that iffhe application, as aforestated, has not been decided till date, the saiiie shall be considered and decided in accordatice wifh law, on its own merits and perspective, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period offour weeks from today. In fhe event, there is no applicatioitL the petitioner may file a fresh application, that may also be considered and decided within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe application. 3. In view of fhe above, according to leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner, nothing sur^ives for adjudication. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of wifh the above observation and direction. Sd/- SatishK.A&"'h»tn Judge