M/S Wainganga Mining Works Pvt. Ltd., Thr. P.O.A., Mr. Anil Laxman Solanki v. State Of Maharashtra, In The Ministry Of Revenue And Forest, Mumbai And ORS.

2025:BHC-NAG:14223-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.7905 OF 2025 M/s. Wainganga Mining Works Pvt. Ltd.

.Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr Akshay Naik, Sr. Adv. a/b. Mr N. A. Nasare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/ State CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATED : DECEM BER 11 , 2025 .

Heard learned senior Advocate Mr Akshay Naik for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr N. R. Patil for the State.

2.

In this petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that though he is entitled for Zero Royalty Pass, the same has not been issued to him by the respondentsauthorities. He further states that earlier also he was required to approach this Court and this Court vide its order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 5951 of 2025 directed the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 therein to consider and decide the application for issuance of Zero Royalty Pass. 3.

According to him, now the policy of the Government has changed, hence the communication should have been issued by the respondents to the petitioner informing him about the fate of his application, as there was order dated 14.10.2025 to decide the application.

4.

Learned senior Advocate further submits that the application, submitted for issuance of Zero Royalty Pass in accordance with new policy framed, is dated 05.11.2025, which is still not decided by respondents.

5.

He submits that because of inaction on the part of respondents, the persons like the petitioner are required to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court every now and then. He, therefore, request this Court that directions be given to the respondents to decide the application for issuance of Zero Royalty Pass within time bound period.

6.

We have tested the contentions of both parties and have also gone through the record. The fact remains that the respondents-authorities are not taking decision and the persons like the petitioner are required to approach this Court every now and then.

7.

Be that as it may, the issue can be resolved if the respondents-authorities are directed to decide every application submitted for issuance of Zero Royalty Pass within time bound period.

8.

The aforesaid observations are made keeping in mind the fact that the Courts are already overburdened with the litigations. When the issue which can be decided by the respondents-authorities in a time bound period, we fail to understand why there should be 'go slow approach' at the behest of respondents-authorities.

9.

The respondents-authorities are duty bound to perform their duty, without any delay. Thus, in order to avoid

further litigations, we by this order request respondentcollector to decide every application for issuance of Zero Royalty Pass at least within three weeks from the removal of deficiencies, if any, in such application.

10.

We further direct that if any deficiencies are noticed by the respondents-authorities in application, the same shall be communicated to the concerned applicant within one week.

11.

In the aforesaid background, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata