HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HGN’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ. Writ Petition No. 3882 CF 2006 PE‘HTIONERs 1. Ramashray Yadav, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shi'i Jaikaran Yadav, Mines owner, R/o Viitage-Ghodari, Tahsil and District- Ma’nasamund (C.G.). 2. Framed Mudiiar, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shri T.T. Mudliar. Mines Owner, R/o Ravigtam, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Bhupendra Kumar Sahu, Aged about 38 years, Slo Shri Laiaram Sahu, Mines owner, RIO Viiiage-Bamhni, Tahsii & District — Mahasamund (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. $tate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Mines, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur {06.) 2. Under Secretary; Department of Minerai Resources, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G,) 3. Coiiec’ior’ (Mines Section), Mahasamund (C.G.)’ 4. Mining Gfmer, Office of the Coiiector. Mahasamund (C.G.) Revenue inspector (Mining Section), Office of ihe Coiiector, Mahasamund (C.G.) 1 6. Chief Executive Ofncer, Viiiage Panchayai Ghodari, District —— Mahasamund (0.6.) Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, iearned senior counsel, with Shri Ami Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri its authorities. Yashwant Singh. learn‘e\ d G.A. for the State of C.G and ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31 July 2006) In this writ petition, the action of the respondents refusing to renew mining lease has been assailed. lt was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession -g” Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’), the State Gbvernment is duty bound to give an opportunity of being heard to an applicant before refusing to renew a mining lease and in the instant case such opportunity was not given to the petitioners. lt was also contended that the reason stated by the Government in the impugned order that if the mining lease is granted, Mahanadi river would be damaged‘ is also not well founded‘ because, the subsequent reports of the Government authorities themselves would show that quarrying in the vicinity of the banks of the river are not causing any danger to the river. There is no need for the Court to appreciate the above reason stated by the State‘government in the impugned order, and it is for them to appreciate whether the subsequent reports of the Government authorities have indicated to the contrary. Suffice it to state that in terms of sub—Rule (1) of Rule 26 of the Rules before refusing renewai of the mining lease to the petitioners the State government ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and since that has not been done in the instant case, on that short ground, the writ petition deserves to be aliowed, )1: ' (2) ln the resuit, the writ petition is alloWed. The impugned orders are quashed. The State Government is directed to consider the appiication of the petitioners for renewal of the lease de novo and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners to have their say in the matter, within a period of three months. No costs. Sdl- chief Justice