BILASPUR W.P. C— L NO. $ /2007- ement Corporation of India ltd. Mandhar Cement factory, P.O. Mandhar , Di‘sttz- Raipur( C.G.) Through its General Manager Ravinder Singh , S/o Jograj Sihgh Aged about 56 years i IONER VERSUS : y Union of India , through Secretary Department of Mines and Minerals, ‘ New Delhi . State of Chhattisgarh Through/the Secretary, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 3// State of Chhattisgarh, through the Seceratry,department of minerals, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur( C.G.) The ColleCtOr ( Revenue), Raipur district , Kutchery Square , Raipur. (c.G.) Mining Officer, District of Raipur Collectorate building ,‘Raipur , (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue), Tehsil— Raipur, Distt z— Raipur , (C.G.) M/s. Gangotri Limes Pvt. Ltd. ~ through its Managing Director, Ganga Ram Sharma' , S/o Late‘Udaynarayan Sharma , Lakhe School Complex Ghandhi Chowk , Raipur ( C.G.). ) , PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF V MANDAMUS AND CERTIORI \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4866 of2007 : Cement Corporation of India Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Union oflndia & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTII U I ION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate with Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri AS.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 2 to 6. Shm' Prashzmt Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shanna, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 ‘day of ‘June, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of pendency of this petition, the petitioner could not tile a revision before the Central Government under the provisions of section 30 ofthe Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’). The petitioner may be permitted to take recourse to revisional forum under the provisions of section 30 of the Act, 1957. Shri Koshy iurther submits that the delay, if any, in approachingthe revisional authority, may be condoned by this Court. He iinther submits that in View of the fact that interim order was granted on 30.08.2007, m favour of the petitioner, the petitioner may be protected for a further . period till the application for interim relief, if so filed before the revisional authority is heard or six weeks, whichever is earlier. Shri Rajput, Shn' Kachhwaha, Shri Jaiswa], learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have no objection. 3. 0n hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is directed that if the application for revision under the provisions of section 30 of the Aet, 1957 is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised by either party. 4. Having regard to fuither fact that the matter has been pending and the interim stay was granted on 30.08.2007, the same shall remain in operation for a iiirther period till the application for interim relief, if so » filed before the revisional authority, is heard or six weeks, whichever is earlier. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the , aforestated liberty and direction. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit / /