¢ ég/w ‘ @ f r 3mm IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1T10N(C)No. 6/3? /2008 PETITIONER Neeraj Kumar Patei S/o. Shri Balakram Patel, aged about— 35 years, Occupation— Bisiness, R/o. Gaushala Road, Kharsia, District— Raigarh, (c.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Department of Mine & Minerals, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G..) Director, Geological & Mine Works, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Collector, Raigarh, District— Raigarh (C.G.) Shri Gopal Sharma S/o. Shri Ramvilas Sharma, R/o. Mahuapali Road, Kharsia, District— Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Assistant Mining Officer, Mining Office, Raigarh (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Z26 227 OF THE ONSTITUION OF INDIA C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.6127 OF 2008 PETITIONER Neeraj Kumar Patel Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur,,Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24‘“ day of November, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order 4-8-2008 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the respondent No.1/Secretary to the Government of Chattisgarh, Department of Mineral Resource, in revision case No.F 7-81/2007/12 (Shri Gopal Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another). The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease of the land situated at village Banipathar, Patwari Halka No.6, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, admeasuring 1.019 hectares for extraction of dolomite stone as per the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules, 1996") for khasra N0s.395/1 and 401. The respondent No.3 granted quarry lease,in favour of the petitioner for khasra No.395/1 admeasuring 0.468 @ hectares for five years by order dated 21-2—2006 (Annexure — P/2). The respondent No.4 also applied for quarry lease. The respondent No.3 granted Iease at khasra No.401 to the respondent No.4 for five years by order dated 22-2-2006 (Annexure - PI3). Thereafter, the respondent No.3 rejected the Iease of the petitioner on the ground the Iease of the said iand has already been granted to another person. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal befo're the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 allowed the appeal by order dated 27-6-2006 (Annexure — P/4) and directed the respondent No.3 to reoonsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, 1996. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 cancelled the mining Iease of the respondent No.4 by order dated 29-7—2006 (Annexure — P/5).\Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.4 preferred a revision before the respondent No.1. In the said case by order dated 4-8—2008 (Annexure — P/1), the respondent No.1 quashed the order dated 29-7-2006 passed by the Assistant Mining Officer , Raigarh, ‘and upheld the order dated 27-6-2006 passed by the Director (Geology & Mining) in appeal No.48/2006 filed by the petitioner. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the Director by order dated 27—6-2006 quashed the order dated 22-2—2006 and directed the authorities below to consider the case in accordance / with the provisions of the Rules, 1996 after affording opponunity of hearing to the parties on merit. The said order was confirmed by the impugned order dated 4-8-2008 passed by the Secretary in revision. 8. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, jointly submit that the order passed by the Director in appeal subsequently by the Secretary in revision have created confusion. Thus, the order of the Secretary may also be quashed and the Assistant Mining Officer, Raigarh, may be directed to consider the case of boththe parties on their applications tiled earlier and pass fresh order in accordance with the Rules, 1996 on its own perspective and merits. 9. Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that in view of the various orders, as aforestated, passed by the Director and the Secretary, the interest of justice would be sub-served, if the order passed in revision is quashed and the Assistant Mining Officer, Raigarh, is permitted to consider the fresh applications filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4, in accordance with law. Having considered all the aspects of the matter and looking from all the angles, it appears to be just and proper that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 may be granted opportunities to put forward their respective cases. On the basis of their applications the Assistant Mining Officer, t \ @ Raigarh, is directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with Iaw and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 4-8—2008 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order asto costs./ ‘