1 2026:CGHC:13526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1249 of 2026 Ravi Vidhani S/o Late Daulatram Vidhani Aged About 45 Years R/o Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director (Bhaumiki Tatha Khanikarm) Indrawati Bhawan, Second Floor, D-Block, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Mining Branch) Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Director (Mining Administration) Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause tittle, as taken from CIS) or Petitioner : Ms. Bhawna Netam, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Laywer {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 20/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to set- aside /quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (ANN P-1) passed by the Respondent No.02, arising out of the revision U/S. 78 of the Chhattisgarh Mines and Minerals Act, 2015 filed by the Petitioner on 27.12.2024 (ANN P-2), arising out of the application dated 08.11.2024 (ANN P-3), submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent No.03, and the Respondent No. 03 be directed to decide the application dated 08.11.2024 (Ann P-3) and renew the lease period for further 05 years, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent authorities had granted Lime Stone Lease in favour of father of the petitioner Daulat Ram Vidhani for a period of 30 days ( i.e. 19.02.1995 to 18.02.2025) for extracting Lime and Minerals from government land bearing Khasra Survey No. 572/1, area 1.618 hectare (4.00 acre). During existence of said lease period, father of the petitioner died on 2-9-2023. Then the petitioner moved an application for transfer of the lease in his favour before the Collector, Bilaspur, which was allowed by the Collector vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 3-10-2024. She further submits that the petitioner submitted an application on 08.11.2024 before the respondent no. 3/Collector (Mining Branch), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for renewal of the Lime Stone Lease for a further period of 5 years, but the Collector / respondent No. 2 did not take any action on the said application, therefore, the petitioner filed revision before respondent No. 2 / Director, Geology & Mining, but the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 28.07.2025 stating therein that, the application has not been filed by the petitioner within six months from the amendment dated 26-6-2020 in CG. Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 (henceforth referred to as ‘Rules, 2015’) which is completely illegal. Hence, she prays that, this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3 3. In reply, learned State counsel submit that, earlier lease was granted for 30 years, but the Rule of 2015 was amended on 26-6-2020, whereby Rule 38(A) of the CG Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 was amended and period of lease was reduced from 30 years to maximum 5 years. It has also been provided in the proviso that, for renewal of lease, mandatory deposit of amount Rs. 20,000/- has to be made within 6 months from the date of above amendment, but in the instant case, the petitioner has filed application for extension/renewal of lease after 4 years from the date of amendment in aforesaid rules. He further submits that, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2, Director, Geology & Mining,, then he may file appeal under Rule 77(3) of the Rules, 2015. Thus, since there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the contention putforth by learned counsel for both the parties and further considering the fact that there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file appeal under Rule 77(3) of the Rules, 2015, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the concerned authority under aforesaid provision. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.03.23 18:16:42 +0530 4