Hla v . K4 w ‘ wa EN 'fHE HéGH GDURT OF GHI‘iM—HwRH A? E§L§§PLE Writ $wtit§m Na. é éz,;2a85 EEmQisé-Ta /:~g—r: Rama Eai, Wfe Shri Makhawai, Ag$€§ abcg? £5 vaar$ A: Chaii'peirmw, Harigai" waahiia Sahkari Sawé‘gi, RR) Wiaga~ Basin 3arbhata, Tahén — Rajim, District— Raipur (£313.). - Versus— RESPONDEM§ / 1. $ara a? whattisgarh, Through the Senretaw, Eagartmant af Minerai Regources, Mamralaya‘ DKS. Bhawans Raigur {$55,}, iiid‘igcim aipur (CG). gm bgkghs¢a (?\§\\$;€::: §1§i Eiskaéu, ‘ e nd known, o Barbhata Basin TahsiL Ragim, tiiéi— Raigu’r {9G,}, ...7. 'WRIT PETTEON UNDER ARTELE 226l22'?‘ ~OF THE COFiQWTim0N OF INDIA FGR fSS’UAhKEE GF A Surf—ABLE ifWiTfWRE-ZZCT!QN QR OREJER W THE MATTER TO DO THE JUSTéaE @taiisvf the petiiian 1. zeuwsg F £§$ 935‘ naug$ tiiia. P{rv \H€l\Iv f» " § M E g9 m , XI—HC—22 ned this petition being aggrieved hv order dated 14. 12.2004 (Arm xure R?) passed by learned Principal Sscmtaly, Mining DEpaItmm t, State of Chhattisgarh whereby the Principal Secretary has rej cted the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground of b Brief facts loading p6t1'tion6r’$ Samiti was g limestope 011 the revenue ian bearing Khasra No.88] 1 admeasuring .140 acres situated in ViHage Basin, Tahsil Rajirn, District Raipur for the period from 2.9. 1997 to Shri Vinay Pandey, cor Shri Sanjay S Agalwal, The petitioner ham 9.2002. On 31.8.2001.the petitioner’s Society moved an applicao'o for renewal of the said mining iease. Since no order regarding ren .wai was passed within a period of one year from tho tiato of flling the application as per sub-ride (2} of Rule 18 of Mines 8r. Mineral Rules, 1996 the said. application was deemeé to have been rejecte and mining area was declared oyen. Aggrievecl therewith the petiti ner herein moved a revision betbre the Principal Secretary on 21,3. 003 and leaned Secretaxv held that since the apylication for ‘ren ai was deemed to have been rejected on 1.9.2002 as per provisio s of sub—rule (Q) of Rule 18 of Rules, 1996, the. petitioner ought to ave moved the revision within a period 0f 6O davs from 1.9.200 ”21.3.2003 therefore, being ‘1 ed bv Emitation. filing of this petition are that the ed lease for ruining operation of VWW 2r t the same has been presented on barred revision was rejectedk .neel for the petitinner. Govt. Adv. for respondent No, 1 8r, 2. ‘e t r p 2. ' t 1. u e Wm..k9fi..a§.c/.ei. ......... . ....................... aw ............................. WW mm mmmw WW§WW ma1%a $WW 3.3.2005 XI—HC—22 V7 RW,E§W§,W Wm Lsanled counsel for the pEtitioner argufid That i116 pstiiionm‘ being anilliterate lady wa$ n of Rules: 1996 the period of h'mitafioxi starts from the date of camnlulication of the onier and in this case :10 communication about me rejecu’on was sent, therefore, the petitioner wa$ under imprassion that petition is in limitation. He further argued that even otheiwise learned SSecretaiy ought to have permitted the petitioner to move an application for condonation of delay iii Filing the revision Eetitiou and ought to have decided the revision on its merits. xHaving heard leaniecl counsel for the parties and having regard to the peculiar facts and \circumstances of the case, the impugned order elated 14.12.2004 iAnnexure Pm?) is set aside and remanded back to the Principal Secretary before whonrthe petitioner ‘ is directed to move an application for condonation of delay in iiiing the revision and in tuni ieained Principai Secretary will decide the o e esaid, the peiition stands disposed of. No.539/2005, LA. Nos.1368l05 o5 1369/05 also stand dispose {Eertified copy as per as pmr provisions of, Rule 59 9t aware of the lsgal position, moreover, application and revision. h the petitioner and after h ' g With the direction afo Consequently; MW. after considering the points raised by the objector also. of. ( u es. Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge i (were) . ‘\ l . Wm W.€£7/a§/m 20“ m 7 mam mam mm ‘ mmm WW§wW mawm . gy