← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/599/2018disposed off

Nirmal Chand Jain v. Union Of India

2018-03-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 599 of 2018 Nirmal Chand Jain, S/o Late Kailash Chand Jain, aged about 63 years, R/o Hira Moti Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, G.A.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/03/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that being aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by respondent No. 2, a revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity 'MMDR Act, 1957') read with Rule 54 and 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for brevity 'MCR, 1960') which is pending consideration before the State Government since 24.11.2017 and immediately after completion of four months the order has to be passed by the Central Government which has not been done till date.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for Central Government would submit that the revision petition filed by the petitioner would be considered and decided expeditiously.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the Rule 55 of the MCR, 1960, since four months time has already been expired therefore, it would be expedient to direct the Central Government to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka