Chattisgarh High Court
Awadesh Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:36044-DB
NAFR
ROHIT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed
WA No. 500 of 2025
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
Awadesh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Karan Singh Thakur Aged About 32
Years R/o Village Mudhena, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Mineral
Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3- Collector (Mining) Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
4 - Mining Officer Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
State/respondents.
2. By the present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of
the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006,
the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the order dated
08.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1833 of
2020 (Awadhesh Singh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that by virtue
of this petition being WPC No. 1833 of 2020, the petitioner has
questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated
06.02.2020/07.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent
No.1-The Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, State of
Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No.F-4-30/2019/12,
whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 29.06.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Respondent
No.2-Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Raipur,
affirming the order dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by
Respondent No.3-Collector (Mining Department), Mahasamund,
dismissing the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease,
has been dismissed. The said writ petition was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025.
Hence, this appeal.
4. It has been vehemently argued Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned
counsel for the appellant that the Hon'ble Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition has though held that the Appellant
failed to fulfill the condition communicated via letter dated
11.06.2015, whereby the Appellant has not submitted the mining
plan and 2016 environment clearance certificate and due to the
non-compliance of the said reason, the quarry lease was not
granted prior to the statutory prescribed period, but the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has
prepared the Mining Plan and has also approached the concerned
authority for its submission and approval within the prescribed
period of 1 year as per Rules of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral
Rules, 2015. He further submitted that learned Single Judge has
failed to consider that the Appellant had already fulfilled the
substantial procedural formalities and rejection is solely based on
a subsequent amendment which defeats the object of fairness
and predictability in administrative decision-making. He also
submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the concerned
authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the letter dated
11.06.2015 has to be construed as letter of intent because, by the
said communication, after receiving the clearances from all the
concerned department the Appellant was directed to submit the
mining plan and environment clearance certificate so the case of
the Appellant should be considered under ambit of Rule 23A(2)(b)
(ii). He lastly submitted that learned Single Judge has also failed
to consider that the authorities have failed to provide an equal
opportunity to the public the case of other applicants have been
considered and have been remanded back for consideration on
merits and the Appellant has been sidelined and his application
has been wrongfully rejected.
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
State/respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single
Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly
allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent
No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available
on record it transpires that the learned Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant
herein has observed that the application for grant of quarry lease
was made by the petitioner on 06.05.2015 (Annexure P-2) before
the competent authority i.e. the respondent No.3-Collector
(Mining), District Mahasamund for a period of 10 years with
regard to the land admeasuring 1.40 hectare out of Khasra No.6,
Patwari Halka No.33 of village Mudhena, Tehsil and District
Mahasamund. The said application, thus, appears to have been
pending before the insertion of the above-mentioned provision, as
such, the same shall become ineligible in view of clause (a) of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 A of the Rules of 2015. The respondent
No.3-Collector (Mining) District Mahasamund, while taking note of
the said amendment inserted with effect from 23.03.2016, has,
therefore, not committed any illegality in rejecting the said
application as claimed by the petitioner holding it to be ineligible,
nor the appellate authorities have erred in upholding the same. It
has been further observed that in so far as the further contention
of the counsel for the petitioner based upon the
communication/letter, dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure P-7) issued by
the Mining Officer, Mahasamund directing the petitioner to submit
the approved mining plan as well as the clearance of
environmental certificate, would, thus, be the essential part of the
Letter of Intent attracting sub-rule (2)(b)(ii) of Rule 23-A of the
Rules of 2015, is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be
rejected, as by virtue of the said communication, the petitioner
was required to fulfill the condition forthwith as provided therein.
However, the petitioner has failed to produce the environmental
clearance certificate, therefore, for non-compliance of the same,
the quarry lease was not granted prior to the statutory prescribed
period, i.e. 22 nd of March, 2018. In view thereof, the petitioner, at
such a belated stage, after passing of the said period, date, i.e. 22
nd March, 2018, vis-a-vis, non-compliance of the conditions
provided in the said communication/letter dated 11.06.2015
(Annexure P-7), would, therefore, be not entitled to get the benefit
of the said provision.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant and the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner /
appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity
or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
