Madras High CourtWP(MD)/15825/2015disposed of

K.R.Desingu Raja v. The Secretary To Government

2017-03-14Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :14.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.15825 of 2015 K.R.Desingu Raja, ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMD 2)Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 3.The Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

... Respondents PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on petitioner's Revision petition dated 15.07.06 in respect of renewal of mining of limestone in Survey No.73/2, 74/1 and 74/3A Vetrilaiyoorani Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District within a stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R-1 : Mr.G.Rajaraman Central Government Standing Counsel For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.G.Muthukannan, Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on petitioner's Revision petition, dated 15.07.2006, in respect of renewal of mining lease of limestone in Survey No.73/2, 74/1 and 74/3A Vetrilaiyoorani Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, within a stipulated period.

2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted mining lease for limestone for a period of 20 years and after expiry of the same, the petitioner had submitted an application for renewal of mining lease period. But, the same was rejected by the third respondent on 30.09.2005, against which the petitioner has filed a revision before the first respondent as per Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The first respondent has taken the same on file and called for remarks from the second respondent. The 2nd respondent has also submitted his reply. Thereafter, the first respondent has not taken any action to dispose of the revision petition and the same, till date, did not see the light of the day. Hence, a direction may be given to the first respondent to dispose of the said revision petition dated 15.07.2006.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent would consider said revision petition and dispose of the same on merits as early as possible. 5.Considering the limited scope of the matter, without adverting into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider the revision petition dated 15.07.2006 filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To.

1.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMD 2)Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

3.The Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate Sr.No.14891 +1cc to Mr.G.Rajaraman, Advocate Sr.No.14484 gcg VB/SKN/RSK/SAAR3/10.04.2017/3P/6C W.P(MD)No.15825 of 2015 14.03.2017