Umesh Paswan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.1120 of 2017 1.

Umesh Paswan S/o Shri Ram Sharan Paswan Aged About 44 Years R/o Ahiwara Ward No. 7, Post Nandini Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2.

Lokesh Jain S/o Late Bhagwan Das Jain, Aged About 43 Years R/o Gram And Post Nandini Khundni, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3.

Ghanshyam Yadav, S/o Shri Narayan Yadav, Aged About 32 Years R/o Gram And Post Nandini Khundni, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.

Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhawan, 2nd Floor, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, ThroughExecutive Engineer, Tilak Nagar, Shiv Mandir Chowk, Awanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4.

M/s A.C.C. Limited, Through Director Plant, Post Jamul Cement Works, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

5.

Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 25/07/2017 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that lease land has been allotted to the respondent No.4 by respondent No.5 for mining of lime stone purpose for which, the petitioners have

made objection before the respondent authorities, which has not been considered and decided.

(2) Be that as it may, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh representation before the Collector, Durg. If such representation has been filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Durg and in turn, the Collector, Durg shall consider and decide the same expeditiously from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(3) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities may decide the representation of the petitioners on its own merits. (4) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-