1 2025:CGHC:36044-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 500 of 2025 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 .202 5 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, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 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 3 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. 4 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, 5 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 6 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