® gmw WM €76 /a’<)//- 04 IN T}E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. NO. (971 2 Li2005 PETITIONER r: Vimal Jain S/o Shli Akheraj Lunia aged about 40 years R/o 16 Recreation Road, Opp— Swami Vivekanand School , Choubey Colony Raipur. (CG) VERSUS i—y ‘v, fv . State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Deputy Chief Manager . Chhattisgarh State Mining Development Corporation , 3" 27/520, Praveen Bhawan , New :i Shanti Nagar Raipur (C.G.) l 3. M/s lspat Godavari Limited Plot Industrial NO. §§$§ 1 tara Phase Raipur -l (C.G.) 4. The Collector, Kanker Dist. Kanker (C.G.) 5. The Union of India Through the Secretary Mineral Resources Department . Ministry of Mines and minerals New Delhi . RS ESPONDENT VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ‘ , XI-HC—22 58 plicaTion. BuT, in This case, neiTher The applicaTion has been rejecTed no iT has been allowed, and simply The names of respondenTs No.2 é 3 have b‘ n recommended for granT of mining lease. Learned counsel 22-7-2005 Mr. RM. $olapurkar, coun: Mr. Vashwanf Singh T! respondents No.1 & 4. ‘ Heard bo1'h The counseL . The pe‘ri‘rioner has prefel 227 of fhe Cons‘ri‘ru'rion’ of J responden‘f No.1. . The main grievance of Th‘ persons, as per Annexure P-7, ap‘ iron ‘ore in Dis‘i'rici’: Kanker as applicafions and -wi‘rhou1' decii recommended The name of respoi Learned counsel for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT as per Rule 26 of The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, l ‘el for fhe pe‘rifioner. iakur, Govt Advocate for ‘rhe Siafe/ 'red This wri‘r pefifion under Article 226/ Zndia being aggrieved by The aci'ion of a pe'i'ifioner is Thaf he along wifh oi'her 21 Jlied for gran‘i' of mining lease in respecf of per Annexure P-1. After scru‘rinizing fhe ling 'ihe same, responden‘r No.1 simply iden‘is No.2 & 3 for gram of mining lease. w«a espondenf No.1 was required 1‘0 decide The applicaTions of The peTiTioner, haT Too afTer giving opporTuniTy To The peTiTioner before deciding The furTher su represenTaTions, for deciding hi decided. He also submiTTed ThaT iTs ThaT even The peTiTioner moved s applicaTion, and even ThaT has noT been respondenT No.3 is already having numbers XI-HC—22 WW,W,W 3mm .03?\3(7L 57 Wm E 200g W WWW%‘%Q‘TW ‘ ,a;31%wan%$r mammm .h2_ .’ of mining lease, even fhen, his name has been recommended and case of The pe‘rifioner hos n01 been conside ~ed. The last submission‘of learned counsel‘for The pefifioner is Tha‘r responder}? No.1 be direcTed t decide The applica‘rion and represen'ra‘rions (Annexures P-5, P-8, P-9 6g P-1 ) of fhe pe‘fifioner‘, in accordance wifh Iaw, To which Iearned counsel for re pondents No.1 & 4 has no objection. Having heard Iearned c unsel for The parfies and having regard 1'0 1'he fac‘i's and circumstances f The case, respondenT No.1 is direcTed To decide The appiicaTion and rep esenTaTions of The pe‘iiTioner, in accordance wiTh law, wiThin a period of 3O ays from Today. WiTh The above obser Tions and direcTion, The peTiTion sTands disposed of ConsequenTly, M.(W.)P. sTand disposed of. 0.2629/2005 and I.A.No.6142/2005 also i l V " r i _’*’ Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge x (qiédise)