MIRI- "ISili '^s, M/s indus Smelters Ltd., a company duly registered under the relevant provisions of law having its registered office at 205, Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur, through its Managing Director Shri Lalit Kumar Singhania, son of Shri Nathu Lai Singhania, aged about 57 years, resident of 28, College Road, Choubsy Colony.Raipur Lalit Kumar Singhania, son of Shri Nathu Lal Sinflhania, aged about 57 years, Director M/'s Indus Smelters Ltd., Raipur and resident lleae Coionv, Rai i ^ 1 Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Mineral Resources, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan. New Delhi 2 The Secretary, Government of India, Minist^ of Mines, New DeShi 3 State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Minist^ of Mineral Resources, D.K.S. Bhavvan, Secretariat, RaiDur (C.G.) ITION UP' ". B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe petitioners. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Assis.tant Solicitor Genen respondent No.l/Union of India. Mr. 'Kishore Bhaduri, Additiona! Advocate Ge respondent No.S/State. xi~ v^'^-s •fsn^'. r» SUNEL Heard on admission. The petitioners have filed this petition for the foliowini "10.1 U.Z A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to transmlt to Et its relevant record ror perusai and scrutiny by this Hon'ble C-ourt and !f necessary, for quashing all 'me arbitrary action on the part of t'ne respondent .authorities in the facts and circumstances writ and/or an order in the nature of writ ertioran iuasnina tn 'r of (Annexure P-1} respondent t^lo.3 State authority No.F-2- 728/1995/12 Raipur dated 26.06.2007 ind further writ of mandamus and or in the nature 01 mandamus do Issue directing the State authorities cQncerned to grant prospecting Sicense in respect ofthe area applied for by the petitioners in the facts ard circumstances of ths case and as per the sw made in this regard and if the State authorities have already granted any nrns! or minina iease to any ier persqn ignor petitioners, facts and ci after that are ing the right of the 3 csncel the same in thi stances of the case and ie same in fs oetitioner. ^-i-^^-... /•'.f's^~"%, ;;SSi'Ml®£'' r' r o i"\ Mn .Aiii n»-i ^'dT^i ^~'\" 10.3 10.4 A writ and/or an order in 'the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing the respondent No.2 to declde the revjsion petition No.12 (18)/2007/RC-II admitted on 27.10.2008 within the time frame flx by this Hon'ble Court in the fects and clrcumstances of the case. Any other reiief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances o'f the case. Cost of the petition may also ^be granted," Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that agalnst the order dated 26.06.2007 (Annexure P-1), petitioner No.1 has filed a Revision Petition before respondent No.2 vide fiie No.12 (18)/2007-RC-I!, in which, no proceeding is being drawn since long back, therefore, a a'irection may be issued to respondent No.2 to dispose of the said Revisfon Petition within the time frame fixed by this Court. The copies of the proceedings pending before respondent No.2 in the aforesaia' Revision Petition No. No.12 (18)/2007-RC-!1, have been placed on record vide pages 251 to 256 of the paper book. A perusai ofthe aforesaid documents would shov/ that by giving a' detailed raason, the concerned authority has idmitted t'ne Revision Petition for final hearing on 27.10.2008. Therefore, now, the matter has to be heard finaily before thi said authority, but, in the meanwhile, this writ petiiioR has y / '^^.. '"^'- vveS- W.P.(C) of 2010 <1^\ ^ j been fiied before this Court and a prayer is being made for ssuance of a direction for disposa! of the case in the facts and circumstances of the cas ,e, when th Revision Petition has aiready been admitted for hearing by the concemed authority on 27.10.2008 and further, in absence of any document to show that even after petitioners' sincere approach before the said authority to expedite the hearing at the eariiest, the authority deciined to do so, 1 am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage by issuing any direction to the said authorify, as prayed for by the petif.ione.rs. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed summarily. However, the petitioners wouid be at liberty to approach the1 filinfl an appropriate application for early disposai of the case. It is expected that if the petitioners do so, th< concerned authority v.'ould take all necessai'y steps to dispose of the case at the earliest. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge s'~'/ns