Chattisgarh High Court
Archean Industrial Mineral ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3572 of 2021
Archean Industrial Mineral Suppliers Through Its Proprietor, Nawab
Mohammad Khan, S/o Shri Abdul Rahman, Aged About 47 Years,
Permanent R/o Amraiya Par Kemor , District Katni Madhya Pradesh.,
District : Katni *, Madhya Pradesh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Geology
And Mining, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Geology And Mining Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector (Mining) District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
4. Mining Officer District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate
For State : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. AG with Mr.
Rahul Jha, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
15/12/2021
1. The limited grievance that petitioner raises in the present writ petition is
for appropriate direction to the respondent no.3 for considering and
deciding his application for renewal of the temporary storage permit
under the Chhattisgarh Mineral(Mining, Transportation and Storage)
Rules, 2009.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had a valid permit with
the validity uptill 18.06.2021. It is further contention of the petitioner that
under the aforementioned rules the requirement is to move an
application for renewal before 90 days expiry of the existing permit. The
petitioner in the instant case because of the Covid-19 Pandemic (Second
Wave) Impact could not move an appropriate application as per the
requirement under law of submitting an application before 90 days.
However, application was made before the expiry of the permit on
10.06.2021 whereas the validity of the permit was uptill 18.06.2021 and
thereafter there has been no further development on the said application.
3. Learned Additional AG appearing for the respondent submits that as per
the instructions, the respondent no.3 is the competent authority and who
has called upon the clarification of the respondent no.2 so far as the
acceptance of an application if not submitted before the expiry of 90
days period which is otherwise required under the Rules of 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this context referred to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby they had granted interim
protection to the all those cases where the period of limitation was
applicable, and where there was inability on account of the Pandemic in
availing the said benefit and in approaching the concerned Court during
the said period. The protection given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
applicable on judicial proceedings as well as quasi judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court had waved off the period of limitation from
15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021.
5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also taking
note of the fact that application is still pending before respondent no.3
the writ petition at this juncture can be disposed of directing the
respondent no.3 to take an appropriate decision on the said application
in accordance with law governing the field. That while taking a decision
the respondents also shall take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in so far as waving off the period of limitation is concerned. Let a
decision be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the above observations/direction, this writ petition stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
