3mm gmg N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR z$%’ WRIT PETITION Art.227 N0. OF 2010 PETITIONERS (Defendants) 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, through its Chief Generai Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District KOrba (CG) Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, District Korba (CG) VS RESPONDENTS : (Plaintiff) 1. M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Limited, through its Senior General Manager Shri Sushant Kumar Dutta, aged 54 years, son of Shri Pulin Bihari Dutta, Caste- Kayasth, resident of Village Ratija, Post Nonbira, Tehsil Pall, District Korba (CG) I 0\@ 2. M/s Maruti Clean Coal'& Power Limited, ,Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur through its Director Shri Ram Awtar Agarwai, son of Late Jagmohan 'Das Agarwai, aged about 46 years, resident of Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) PRoPosaD/INTiRVENEk PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA matter 1‘3 iinally dispOSed of. 18.05.201 an rder was ssed on plaintiff’s application under 0, o pa Section 151 C.P.C. a also explaining that the order passed on nd 07.05.2010 is sill operative and this was done Without hearing the t petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the communication (Axeurev7) does not refer to the order nnP/ paed by the trial Court on 18.05.2010 and the ame was passed ss s behind the back of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the pitioners submits that because of the order of status-quo, the et petitionerCompany is suffering irreparably inasmuch as l transportation of coal belonging to the petitioner/company for taking it to the railway siding is severely affected. He also submits that the routine operati of the pettioner/company is affected on i and since, according to the petitioner, the statu—quo order ceased s to operate aft 13.05.2010, the impugned communication ought er not have been issued by the learned judge. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits hat the area t through which the petitioner is trying to transport the coal falls Withi the lease area and that the petitioner has no authorit to n y transport the coal through his land. He also submits tat the h petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the trial judge on 18.05.2010. 4. Be that as it may and Without entering into the merits of the case, since both the parties have agreed for issuance of direction to trial Court for disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 8a 2 of C.P.C. an under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. as early as d \ possible, it is directed that the learned trial Judge shall do well to l/ \dispose l of those applications as early as possible, more so when arguments have already been concluded on the subject applications. 5. It is informed that the learned trial Judge is on leave. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they shall appear before the trial Judge as soon as he resumes duties after completion of his leave either during the summer vacation or immediately after the summer vacation. 6. Since the learned trial Judge has observed that serious disputes are taking place on the spot, and the operation of the transportation of coal of the petitioner/company is severely affected, it is expected from the trial Court to deal with the matter during the summer vacation, if the Court is available. 7. With this observation, the instant petition stands finally disposed of. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge