← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPPIL/71/2019withdrawn

Durga Dasgupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-20Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPPIL No. 71 of 2019 • Durga Dasgupta S/o Dr. Late P.B. Dasgupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Surya Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

----Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mines And Minerals Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director of Mines, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. -------Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate General Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J.

20/09/2019

1. The prayers are in the following terms:

"10.1 That, the Respondents may be directed to conduct video shooting through electronic media with respect to selection the process of selection of successful bidder through lottery system in all the Districts of the State wherein the Sand mines are alloted by reverse auction process in accordance with provisions of Rules of 2019.

10.2 That, respondents may be directed to protect and upkeep the record of the video shoot so recorded in form of compact disc or other recordable device forming a part of public record of the tender process. 10.3 That, any other relief which this court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Advocate General representing for the State submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and

misconceived. It is stated that 'Videography' is being done by the respondents. Reference is also made to clause 16(ii) of the circular No. 4418-44/ खनन 02/रत(मल)/न.क.38/1996, dated 27-08-2019 issued by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Chhattisgarh; which stipulates 'Videography'.

3. In view of above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw the matter.

4. Permission is granted.

5. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The security deposit effected by the petitioner will stand returned to the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Pawan