H IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A ILA Wn't Pgtégon Noit§1 2006 , PETE IONER f, Ajay Kumar Sahu, SI a &hn' Madhoram $ahu, aged about 25 years, .'_,.- Occupauon— Mmmg Contractor, " Rxo ego 31m Jugal Klshom Sahu, Village- Torla, Pust‘ Bhurka, Tahsll~ Abhanpur, District— Raipur (C.G.) - Versus- : J. State of Chhatij‘sgm‘h ‘ f Through the Secretaxy, Departmant o Mines Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Ralpur (C G) 2. Umonof India, ThrougbSecretary, Ministry of Min&¢,\ Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Competent Authoriiy, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India (undot Section 54 of The Mina-all Concession Rulés, 1960), Shastri BhEWa-ns New Delhi. /4. Collector, Rajpur (C.G.). f,“ 5. M] s Chhattisgarh Minerals, Through 1ts propnetor, Mohammad Asgar, aged about 40 years Q} o non known, RI o Babla Complex G E Road Ralpur (C G) k 9 (a 3 . g6 mwsvug TEA KUR VIJAY SINGH Asst Sollcnor General of India LHrmTTISGARH HIGH GOU8T hum mum £ amuus Boaspm' um. 3 ' , MM C s ; wRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F R I$SUANCE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBmON CERTIORA I moo DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTJCE IN TgE MATTER. W 9F THE A WRIT OF OTHER Mi Max Varsus 51'a1'e of Chha'f'fisgarh and ofhers Responden‘l’s Présah‘i': Mr. Pmshan'i‘ Jaiswal, Senior caunsel wifh Mr. 5ankaip Jaéswal, counsel for The petifinner. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for The Sfafe/ respondenfs No. 1 md 4. Mrs. B, Maify, Sfanding counsel far Union of India. Mr. Sumesh Bajuj, counsel for ‘rhe respondem' No} 5. ORDER (Passed on 15“” Day of February, 2007) 1. Learned caunsel appearing far f'ne pefifioner submi'i's Wm The pefifioner has preferred a revision before Compe'ren‘i’ Aufhori‘ry-responden? No. 3 againsf 'i'he order dnfed 23-11—2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by fhe Under secretory, Mineral! Resources Depar‘fmenf, Governmen'l' of Chha‘rfisgarh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for fhe pefifioner seeks ' permission of fnis Courf fo wi'rhdrow 'H'Iis pefifion wifh a direcfion fo fhe respondenf No. 3-Compefen'i' Aufhorify fo consider and decide fhe pending represen‘i’afion wifhin fhe sfipuiai'ed fime, To which iearned counsei appearing for fi‘ie ofher side have no objeciion. If is ordered accordingiy. 3. The respondenf No. 3-Compe'ienf Auihoriiy is accordingly direci’ed ‘i’o consider and decide his pending represen'i‘afion No. 12(6)/2006/R.C.fwo, New Delhi, dafed 30.6.2006 (Annexure P/5)‘ @ wifhin a period of Mo mon-ths from fhe dafe of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The wrh‘ pefi'rion is accordingiy dismissed as wifhd fhe above s'mfed liber'ry. Na order as fa cos’rs. rawn wi'rh Subhush Carrified capy as per mks. W, 7“-” ‘ 1 1 X Sd/- Satish K Agnihotri Judge ‘ r