E: ^ 1^7 / e-> } IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH. WRIT PETITION (0 N0. SS^ /2010 PETITONER RESPONDENTS <:13V:::^\0..--'' ^ss^- ^''.•-^••'^y /:^>' /V.t <y DEEPAK CHAWDA, S/o Late Shri Govind Bhai Chawda, Age about 46 Years, R/o MIG - 706, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Thorough its Secretary, IVIineral Resources Department Mantralaya, D. K. S. Building, District-Raipur(C.G.) DIRECTOR, Director of Geology & mining, Sonakhan Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) THE COLLECTOR, (Mining Section), Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. :i^^i:i-..!:^i;::':;'.;^'.:'. •.•SSS-^-f ^^'SE'"'~^->. J"?^^ -%^^^^il ~ft '^' Amit mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (0 No. 3998 of2010 PETITIONER : Deepak Chawda. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J, Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 30th day of July, 2010) 1. Thecaseofthepetitioneris that the petitioner has made an application before the Collector (Mining Section) Rajnandgaon for grant ofmining lease. The application was not considered. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2-Director, Geology & Mining stating that sub rule (2) and (3) ofRule 18 ofthe Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 provides that ifthe application is not decided within a period of one year, the same shall be deemed to have been refused. 2. The respondent No. 2, after having considered all the aspects of the matter, by order dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure P/3) remitted back the matter to the Colleetor for taking a decision in accordance with law, on its own merit within a period of six months. Nothing has been done in the matter even thereafter. 3. In that event, it is not for the High Court to execute the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as the High Court cannot be approached for executing the order which is already in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner may approach the officer concemed for getting execution of the order done, ifso advised. 4. In view ofthe above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1^1 ^'Ss aII