1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal no. 233 of 2011 Udaykumar S/o Vasantkumar Betharia. VERSUS Union of India through Sectry, Ministry of Mines, and 5 others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. Joshi, AGP for respondent no. 3,4 & 6. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ DATE : 11.07. 2011. The matter was adjourned by this Court on 1.7.2011 and thereafter on 5.7.2011. Today we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGP. for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 6. The judgment dated 6.4.2011 in W.P. no. 4506/2010 is questioned before this court. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 29.7.2009 passed in Revision by Director (Mines), Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India. The order of Hon'ble Minister (Mines), State of Maharashtra dated 20.5.2008 has been upheld in that revision. By that order Hon'ble Minister granted prospecting licence for Manganese ore to respondent no.5. Shri Kulkarni contends that finding that the present appellant is not placed appropriately or respondent no. 5 is better placed is erroneous. He contends that appellant also has got vast experience in mining activities. To substantiate this, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 2 of the written notes of arguments filed by the petition before the revisional tribunal. 2 It is apparent that whether the respondent no. 5 is better placed than the appellant is a question which turn on facts and those facts have been gone into by the Hon'ble Minister and thereafter by revisional authority. Finding is against the appellant. That concurrent finding is maintained by the learned Single Judge of this court. If that finding is to be challenged as perverse, something else is needed to be pressed into service. Other contention is, there is no requirement that person applying for such licence must have any experience or then must be a small scale indutries. Here, as already noted, the respondent no. 5 is found to be better placed by all the authorities including this court. Hence, we find the present arguments at this stage misconceived. Letters Patent appeal, is, therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Hirekhan