1 2025:CGHC:8615 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2903 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar Kerketta S/o Late Shri Mikhaiel Kerketta Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Portenga, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Director Director of Geology And Mining, Sonakhan Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- The Collector (Mining Section) Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. To quash the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 in appeal case No. 4- 16/2019/12 (Annexure P-6) in the interest of justice and further the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent No.3 to allow the renewal of quarry Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 lease application of the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other writ, order or direction, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease on 17.10.2007, for a period of 5 years. He would further submit that the petitioner could not make an application for the renewal of the mining lease within the period provided under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. He would further submit that when no decision was taken by the concerned Collector/competent authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director, Geology & Mining/respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2019 on the ground that the application for condonation was not moved along with the application before the Collector/competent authority. He would further contend that the authority concerned ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to move an application for condonation of delay. He would further submit that the petitioner, against the order dated 04.02.2019, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P/6); thus, he would pray that the order impugned may be quashed and respondent No.3 may be directed to allow the renewal of quarry lease application of the petitioner. 3 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that a well reasoned order has been passed by the respondent authorities as the petitioner failed to move an application for condonation of delay along with the application for mining lease. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the provisions of Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. 7. In the present case, the fact that there was a delay of only 10 days in making the application for the renewal of the mining lease, but the competent authority failed to take cognizance of such application, therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.2, who in turn, dismissed the revision only on the ground that the application for condonation of delay was not moved along with the application for mining lease, vide order dated 04.02.2019. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.02.2019 and the same was also dismissed. 8. In the present case, if the petitioner did not submit an application for condonation of delay along with the quarry lease application, the concerned authority should have afforded the opportunity to the petitioner to move such application. Further, the Collector/competent authority failed to pass an order on the application of the petitioner made for the quarry lease. Subsequently, when a revision was filed, 4 respondent No. 2 dismissed it without considering the merits of the case, and the appeal was also dismissed by respondent No.1. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal Case No. 4- 16/2019/12 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set-aside. 10.The petitioner is permitted to move an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit before the concerned Collector/competent authority and the concerned authority is directed to decide the application for renewal of the mining lease preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.However, the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the case on its own merits. 12.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM