&....:;" ^ s' Jft HIGH GOURT€iR<?HMATFISGARH:Blt.ASPUR WRITPETmONfCl N0.6952 OF 2008 PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS Deepak Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Bholenath Gupta, aged 50 years, Resident of l<yipana- House, Station Road, Durg(CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Priocipal Secretary, Ministryof Mineral Resources Department, D.K. Bhawan, RaipQr (CG). 2. The Coltector, Mining Department, Dyrg, District Durg (GG). 0/Vrit petition underArtjcle 226and 227 oftllie Constitutipnl 6f India) SjngleBench:1-l<Mi'^eShri^aUshK.^s|nihotri,J. Present:- Shri Yogesh Pandey,counsel for thepetittoner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, ^Panel Lawyer for the State/ respot'idents.,,,..,,^.,^,..:, :,,;:, ' . : : : . ,' • ORBM.IE (Passed on tMis 15lh€lay;of®ecember,2008)^ With the consent of learned counsel appearing forthe parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) Learned counsel appearjng for the petitloner submits that pursuant fo the orderdated 23-12-2005 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Centrat Mining Tribunal, the petitioner made an application to the State Government along with mining plan samples collected t?y IBM for testing, such appljcation is not a part of record and, as such, it is difficutt to know the date of making application. 3) The Tribunal in its order cleariy stated that if the State Government desires on the issue pf genujnity of the report, the petitioner may be required to SubmiF .the mining plan samples collected by 1BM for testing on the basis of ^atemerA mad4 by the petitionerbeforetheTribunal. ! 1 ' 4) ShriPayasi, ieamedPanelLawyerfot-theStatestibmit^thatfcy letter dated 19-10-2006 (AnnexuFe-FV7)thepetitjonerwasdirecti^it® ^.iafifei.;ii.'SAs&^il^S' ,iWI"!'ilH'ir Z-- t5> Gowri produce mining plan samples eoltected by IBiyifortestlng.butthe petitioner tias not yet produced any samples as desired by the respondent authorities, The.petitioner has replied to the above stated letter on 15-11-20£%{Annexure-P/S] stating that he had already submittedtheminingplansamplesalongwiththeapplication. 5) Be that as it may, since the Trjbunal's order is on the basis of submission made by the petitioner that if the State Govemment desires the mining plan samples collected by IBM fortestingwilt be produced again. The petitioner ought to have producedrthe mining plan samples collected by IBM for decision on hjs application. Thus, the prayer made bythe petitioner that the respondents be directed to consider his application cannot be granted, at this stage. The petitioner ought to have Gomplied with the order passed by the Tribunal firstand thereafterany orderGan be passed. 6) In viewof the foregoing, thepetition deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed surnmarily. Satisb^^"botrl Judge jy