Trilokinath Agrawal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, Judge

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate direction to the respondent No. 1 to pass a speaking order in terms of Rule 28(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 on his applications dated 29.2.2005, 2.2.2010 and 25.5.2012 Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/11 respectively as also a direction to respondents/ authorities to decide his renewal application dated 5.1.1998 (Annex. P/4) on some early date within some time bound schedule. On perusing the averments of the petition as well as the annexed papers, it is revealed that vide Order No. 3-25/77/12/3 dated 3.7.78, the authorities of the respondent No. 1 had granted the lease with respect of some land for excavating Lime Stone/ Dolomite, for the period between 31.8.88 to 30.8.98 (Ten years). Subsequent to it, the petitioner did not carry-out the excavation work and thereby violated the condition No. 3 of Part-VII of the agreement and, therefore, vide order dated 18.10.2004 (Annex. P/8) such lease was declared to be lapsed with a direction to take over the possession of the aforesaid land. Subsequent to it, on dated 29.2.2005 a representation in the shape of the application (Annex. P/9) was filed by the petitioner in the office of respondent No. 1 but nothing was done by the authorities of the respondents, on which, the petitioner again submitted his application/ representation dated 2.2.2010 (Annex. P/10) and 25.5.2012 (Annex. P/11) for recalling the order dated 18.10.04 (Annx. P/8). But as per averments of the petition, the aforesaid applications/representations are still not decided by the authorities of the respondent No. 1.

In the course of the arguments, petitioner''s counsel submits that unless the aforesaid applications Annex. P/9 to P/11 are decided by the authorities of the respondent No. 1, he is not in a position to file the statutory revision u/s 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 because such applications are in fact the review petition. In such premises, he prayed for issuing appropriate direction to the authorities of the respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the aforesaid application on some early date in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

In the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the aforesaid applications/ representations Annex. P/9 to P/11 filed by the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed and permissible under the law within ninety days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order along with the copy of petition with annexures by the petitioner in the office of authorities of respondent No. 1.

Petition is disposed of as indicated above. C.C. as per rules.