1 WPC No. 629 of 2021 2026:CGHC:26555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 629 of 2021  Smt. Noorunissa Begum W/o Shri Shakeel Ahmed Aged About 60 Years R/o Nayapara , Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Through Power Of Attorney Hodler Aadil Ahmed S/o Late Shri Vakil Ahmed, 41 Years, R/o Nayapara Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining Sonakhan Bhawan, Raipur. 3. The Collector (Mining Section) Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Akas Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondents :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30.06.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 19.05.2017; 26.11.2019 & 10.11.2020 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 WPC No. 629 of 2021 whereby petitioner’s application for renewal of mining / quarry lease was rejected; petitioner’s appeal and second appeal were also dismissed, respectively. 2. The petitioner was granted mining lease for the period from 23.04.2002 to 22.04.2012 and according to Rule 17 of Chhattisgarh Minor and Mineral Rules, 1996 (herein after referred as “Rules, 1996”) renewal has to be made at least one year prior to the date of which the lease is due to expire. As such, the application for renewal of quarry lease was required to be made on 21.04.2012, however, the petitioner made the application on 17.04.2012 and the same was rejected on the ground of delay of about 11 months which runs contrary to Rule 17 of the Rules, 1996, which is sought to be challenged before this Court. 3. Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered by the respondent authority in light of Rules, 1996 and granted the mining lease to petitioner. 4. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there is no provision for condoning the delay in making the renewal application of mining lease in Rules, 1996. He 3 WPC No. 629 of 2021 would also submit that the provision of Limitation Act would not apply in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 6. At this stage it would be appropriate to notice Rule 17 of Rules, 1996, which states as under:- 17. Renewal of quarry lease :- Every application for the renewal of a quarry lease shall be made at least one year before the date of which the lease is due to expire. 7. A careful perusal of the Rule 17 of Rules, 1996 would show that at least application for the renewal of a quarry lease shall be made at least one year before the date of which the lease is due to expire. In the present case, mining lease was granted to the petitioner on 23.04.2022 and same was due to expire on 22.04.2012 and the petitioner made the application for renewal on 17.04.2012 which was required to be made by the petitioner on or before 21.04.2011 as per Rule 17 of Rules, 1996, as such, it has rightly been rejected. 8. So far as the condonation of delay for renewal is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sushila Devi v. 4 WPC No. 629 of 2021 Ramanandan Prasad & others 1 has held that provision for condonation of delay does not apply where no period of limitation provided. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ganesan represented by its power agent G. Rukmani Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and others 2 has relied upon the principle of law laid down in the matter of Smt. Sushila Devi (supra). In the present case, there is no specific provision in Rules, 1996 for condoning the delay and for making application for condonation the delay. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion analysis, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit 1 (1976) 1 SCC 361 2 (2019) 7 SCC 108