Prafulla S/O Ram Lanjewar vs State Of Maha. Thr. Principal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9381 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                       W.P.No.2487.2021.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2021

          Prafulla S/o Ram Lanjewar,
          Aged about 61 years, Occu. - Business,
          R/o. MIG Colony, Wanjari Nagar,
          Nagpur.
                                                             .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       The State of Maharashtra,
          through it's Principal Secretary,
          Department of Industries,
          Energy and Labour,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.
 2)       The Director,
          Directorate of Geology and
          Mining, Government of Maharashtra,
          Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri A. J. Gilda, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Ms N. P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 16.07.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all

the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and video quality was

proper.

Judgment 2 W.P.No.2487.2021.odt

2. Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms

N. P. Mehta, learned A.G.P. who appears by waiving notice on behalf of

both the respondents.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. It is seen that the application made by the petitioner under

Rule 20(7) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic & Hydrocarbon Energy

Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short 'Rules 2016') for revival of

his lapsed Manganese Ore lease is still pending. This application has

been made by the petitioner on 08.04.2021 and rule 20(7) of the Rules

2016 requires that such an application is decided within a period of

three months from the date of receiving the application. Considering

this provision of law, we are inclined to allow this petition seeking

limited relief of making a decision on the application as a time bound

one.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are

directed to decide the application filed under rule 20(7) of the Rules

2016 within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. We

grant liberty to the petitioner to file additional material in support of

Judgment 3 W.P.No.2487.2021.odt

his application dated 08.04.2021, in view of provisions made under

rule 20(8) of the Rules 2016 and if such additional material is

provided, same shall also be considered in accordance with law.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

            (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)                 (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)




 Kirtak