fn HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH PETITIONERS HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 79 of 2008 1. B. Vijay Kumar, Chhattisgarh Exploration Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 501-B, Priyadarshani Co- operation Housing Society Limited. Priyadarshani nagar, Ring Road No.1,Raipur(C.G.) 2. Shirish I. Shah - Director, B. Vijay Kumar, Chhattisgarh Expioration Pvt. Ltd. Aged about 63 years, S/o Shri indu Lal Mansukh Lal Shah, R/o A- 32, Blue Diamond Apartment, Central Avenue, Chembur Mumbai. RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Mining, Government of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Mineral Department, Chhattisgarh. 3. Secretary, Department of Forest, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Speciat on Duty Officer, Sanchatnalaya, Land in Mining, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. % Appeal under Section 2 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Coyrt (Appeal to the Division Bench) Act. 2006 i: Shri Ambuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeiiants. Shri A.K. Barik, learned counsel on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwal, learned Standing c^unsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate Generai for respondents No. 2 to 5. JUDGMENT The foilowing judgment of the Court was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. The appellants have fiied this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 07-04-2008, passed in W.P.No.97/2002 whereby the appetlants' writ petition has been dismissedas not mainSainable in view of the alternative efficac'ious remedy of filing a revision peiition under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Deveiopment and Regutation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). 3. Shri Ambuj Agrawat, learned counsel for the appeltants though vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appeliants' writ petition, could not dispute that the appeltants have an alternative remedy of filing a revision petitiqn before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Acf. /f. 4. In thls view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 5. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. »• Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -&;•' subbu