v H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C) No.2447l2009 PETITIONER Padam Chand Jain, S/o Shri v Shanti Lal Jain, aged about 40 years, Rlo Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Mines & Minerals, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 Sub-Divisional omcer (Revenue), Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. \ MrManish Upadhyay, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the p State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (07.04.2o1o) Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner- Padam Chand Jain was granted a mining lease. On 13.03.2009, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) issued stay order against the petitioner'making allegations that the petitioner has not taken safety measures for conducting the mining work and there are chances of accident. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer stayed the mining operations with w.P.(C) No.2447/2009 immediate effect until further orders. It is this order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which has been challenged in this writ petition and the petitioner is praying for quashment of the same. ‘ Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents. The State has contended that after issuance of the stay order by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the matter has been remitted to the Collector (Mines), Rajnandgaon, who‘is the competent authority under the C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996; After receiving the case from the O/o Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Collector (Mines), Rajnandgaon has issued a ‘notice on 19.05.2009 to the petitioner and the petitioner has been called upon to file his reply. lt has been contended by the State that the petitioner has committed violations of the terms and‘conditions of the lease deed, which are also in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, 1996. lt is stated at bar that the Collector is the final authority to take decision in the matter and the proceedings are pending before the Collector. w Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, now, makes a limited prayer that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Collector (Mines), Rajnandgaon to dispose of the case at the earliest so that the controversy ends forever. He also submits that the irregularities pointed out by the State authorities have already been removed by the petitioner and information in this regard has been furnished to the concerned authorities. This limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. ln view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage and} it is directed that the Collector (Mines), Rajnandgaon, shall try to dispose of the matter as C2 w.P.(C) No.2447lzoo9 early as possibie preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costsL/r/ u I shyna