G ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. •^---S 8 2-0F 2005 PETITIONER: ..••• \^..--?^ ^.-^^•y' r-°^'..•'.'?."SV?.'?"" ...•• ^-^^":....--"' ,^^^" RESPONDENTS: Deepak Kumar Gupta, son of Late Bholanath Gupta, aged about 47 years, resident of Kalpana Home, Station •c? Road, Durg. y<" A": vs k^ui^ vsiint .31 isst. Solic'tor Qsne'"3'..-" CHH&TTISQABH HiaH C( Hia'a Caurt Gampus, BiSaspui {C.G.t ^\. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal &, Mines, Shastri Marg, New Delhi. ^2. The Secretary, Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Marg, New Delhi. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Mineral Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226& 227 OF ^..^ w.,.^ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 31 'nvii^twwv ';|slls<-.y|s|tl(>J'y|SiTi}<!i<Ks, (qc)l'<iy< :^e..^^i.h£.. 3II^9iq3?P (*lcl(^<ti) •^200 sii^l'RrR'ii* VWSI^flVW s^iTSR^ftetsn^a 23.9.2005 Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel fi 5hri Bhisma Kingar, Standir Shr'1 Sandeep Dubey, Sovt. The case of the petitione'r the petitioner ha^-moved an apt>lication for grant of mining ]ecae jftutes, 1960 oyer the land bearing ^iectares situated at Vitkge Thanod, ^tions were invitedon the cpplication ^at public and also a report from the under the Mineral Concessions Khasra No.2820 measuring 14.50 Ciistrict Durg. Thereafter, objei of -the petitioner from the genei rejected vide order dated 4.2.^ thaton survey the runnerand mo| Counsel for the petitioner 4.2.2004 petitioner has fijed o No.2 in the year 2004 and since but the revi.sion petition has not| that 1+ie limited request of the (^ directed to decide the revision learned 6ovt. Advocate for re^ objection. T>i«lCT<ilf»iiinl'^'R!'<1)•(Rl^dK ^>3if^tian^?i r •t+ie petitioner. jg Counsel for respondent Nos.1 d 2. (Advocate for respondent No.3. is that after conducting -the survey Halka Patwari concerned. Ultimo^ely, •the petitioner's cyplication wos 004 (Annexure P-2) on the.9round ilcting sand was not found at tiie site. ^ubmits 1+iat against the order dated revision petitron before respondent rtien, more' thon one yearhas etapsed been decided. Therefore, he submits etitioner is that respondent No.2 be petition of the petitioner, to which ledrned Standing Counsel for r^spondent Nos.l & 2 Shri Kingar & pondent No.3 Shri bubey, hav% no -£Z_ SP/FS/2005-20,000 id^ ^u\'v VJTOI "yit(irt«,i»Tl1<(i<i<s, Iqrti'dy'; *11*1«1WW aii^sT qgEp ('i^fg^) W^200 sii^nwR-fi* gaiT3n^?rri>*ii* Bt^ •wa^t^-\ s^aiw^ifeisn^?! -tj <pi<i[n<Sli tiinT^lsl<l tluitsi't ^srf^ian^si The request made by cour^sel for the petitioner oppears to be just, fair and reasonable, thereflore, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the revision petition of t(ie petitioner in accordance with law as early ae possible but not later •f'han three months. With thedirection aforesad, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No.8265|/05 also stands disposed of. Cert-ified copy as per rules. Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge