1 2025:CGHC:29074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2529 of 2025 Kholbahara Kenwat S/o Late Akti Ram Kenwat Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Nandeli, Post Aamgaon, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Mining, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector (Mining Branch) Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Tahsildar Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 7 - Manharan Sahu S/o Chinta Ram Sahu, R/o Village Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 8 - Rajeshwar Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu, R/o Village Naneli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 9 - Sevti Bai Sahu W/o Manharan Sahu, R/o Village- Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.). ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA with Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order passed by the respondents-authorities, but seeking direction against the State/respondent-authorities to immediately stop all illegal mining of Minor Mineral carried out in the Government Land (bearing Khasra No.16/1 situated at village -Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti, C.G.) and direct the respondents-authorities concerned to take action against the private respondent Nos.7 to 8, who are carrying out illegal mining over the government land without any authority or lease granted by the State Government under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015, mining cannot be conducted over the government land carrying Minor Mineral without license, however, the respondent authorities are aware that illegal mining has been conducted upon the government land since decade by the private respondents and others, but no action has been taken against them till date. Number of representations was given to the concerned respondent-authorities (Mining Officers, Collector, SDO, Tahsildar, Superintendent of Police) in which specifically it 3 has been stated that illegal mining has been conducted by the private respondents No.7 to 9 over the government land situated at Village Nandeli, which includes Khasra No. 15, 16/1 and it has also been stated that the entire area is affected due to the illegal mining, but same are pending consideration till date. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that pursuant to numerous representations being made in this regard, patrolling been done from time-to-time and it is understood that the situation in village -Nandeli has arisen on account of the political rivalry between two groups (one consisting of private respondents herein and another group is Yagyendra Kumar Chandra and the petitioner herein). Learned Counsel further contended based on complaint made by petitioner and Yagyendra Kumar Chandra, the answering respondents have acted in an unbiased manner and have tried their best to keep a constant visit. The inspection was carried out and it was found that illegal mining had been carried out on the subject land, Panchanama was prepared on 09/10/2024 and during inspection no illegal mining was found to carried out, however, a JCB being used for illegal mining was found on the spot and it was seized by the Mining team in accordance with the provision of Section 21 of the MMDR Act 1957. The vehicle was found to be belonging to one Ram 4 Charan Kaiwart and the vehicle had to be released after payment of fine of Rs. 26,000/- by the Owner. Learned Counsel further contended that present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the reliefs/directions sought for by the petitioner, is the matter of PIL. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, reliefs/directions sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition, further the fact that petitioner is directly not affected person in this case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition before appropriate Court. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-