1 2026:CGHC:3463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 778 of 2021 * - Mohit Singhania S/o Shri Lalit Singhania Aged About 40 Years R/o Manjusha, 15/480. Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mineral Resource Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Office Of Collector (Mineral Branch), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director, (Mineral Administration), District Office, Office Of Collector (Mineral Branch), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anil Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner as successful bidder and grant a quarry lease as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules 2015 on khasra no. 824, 825/1,2,3 and 826/1 measuring 3.867 hectares situated at village Murra, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur within such time period as may be prescribed by the Hon’ble Court. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.21 11:13:00 +0530 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to electronic tender floated by the respondents dated 19.09.2016, the petitioner participated in said bid and subsequently, it was awarded. Mr. Shukla would submit that on 20.10.2016, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit performance security and thereafter, performance security was furnished by the petitioner 26.10.2016. The letter of intent was issued to the petitioner on 01.12.2016 for grant of quarry lease of limestone. He would contend that quarry plan was approved by the competent authority on 19.01.2017 and thereafter environment clearance was also granted on 16.02.2017, but till date final order has not been passed and quarry lease has not been granted yet to the petitioner. He would submit that as matter is pending consideration before respondent No. 3, a direction may be issued to decide the matter expeditiously within stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim relief for grant of quarry lease. He would contend that the matter is still under consideration and decision would be taken by the authorities strictly in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to 3 decide the pending matter of the petitioner with regard to grant of quarry lease strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of case. 7. Consequently, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti