1 2026:CGHC:22476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2411 of 2026 1 - Sushil Kumar Agrawal S/o Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. -05 Naya Baradwar District Sakti C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Mineral Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - Collectorate District Sakti C.G. 3 - Assistant Mining Officer, District Sakti C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 Issue order or direction directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 13.02.2026 most particularly ANNEXURE P-3 submitted by the petitioner before respondent authorities within a time- bound manner; 10.2 Direct the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law; 10.3 Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice; 10.4 And any other relief, which the court deems fit and proper. 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating that he had applied for grant of a dolomite mining lease before the competent authority in respect of 3 land bearing Khasra Nos. 802/1, 800/10, 800/11, 800/12, 801/1, 801/2 and 801/3 situated at Village Akalsara, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti. It has been pleaded that the petitioner submitted the said application after complying with all statutory requirements and completing all requisite formalities along with the necessary documents as prescribed under the applicable mining laws and rules. It is the case of the petitioner that despite submission of a complete application, the same has remained pending consideration before the respondent authorities since the year 2011 and no final or reasoned order has been passed till date. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 773 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.02.2013 granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue his application before the competent authority and expecting the authority to decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner further submits that even after the aforesaid order passed by this Court, he continuously pursued the matter before the respondent authorities and complied with all directions; however, no decision has yet been taken on his application. It has also been alleged that several other applicants, who had applied subsequently, have been granted mining leases whereas the petitioner’s earlier application has been kept pending without any justification. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated 13.02.2026 before the 4 competent authority seeking expeditious disposal of the pending application, but the said representation is also pending consideration. According to the petitioner, the continued inaction of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, thereby compelling him to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for grant of dolomite mining lease as far back as in the year 2011 after fulfilling all statutory requirements and submitting all necessary documents before the competent authority. It is contended that despite lapse of more than a decade, the application of the petitioner has not been decided till date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 773 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013 had already directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law. However, despite the said order, the respondent authorities have failed to take any final decision, thereby rendering the earlier order ineffective. It is further argued that similarly situated applicants, who had applied subsequently, have already been granted mining leases whereas the petitioner’s application has been kept pending arbitrarily and without any justification. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner also 5 submitted a fresh representation dated 13.02.2026 requesting expeditious disposal of the pending application, but the same has not yet been considered. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and prays that an appropriate direction be issued to the competent authorities to consider and decide the pending application and representation in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease as well as the subsequent representation are required to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the applicable mining laws and rules. It is further submitted that grant of mining lease involves consideration of several factual and legal aspects and the competent authority is required to examine the eligibility of the applicant and compliance of statutory requirements before passing any final order. Learned State counsel submits that if the application and representation of the petitioner are still pending, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 6. From perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, it appears that the petitioner had applied for grant of dolomite mining lease in respect of the land in question and the said application is stated to be pending consideration before the competent authority since the year 2011. It further appears that this Court in W.P. No. 773 of 2011 vide order dated 08.02.2013 had already granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his application before the competent authority with an expectation that the same would be decided in accordance with law. It also appears that the petitioner has subsequently submitted a fresh representation only on 13.02.2026 before the competent authority seeking expeditious disposal of the pending application and the said representation is also stated to be pending consideration. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration before the competent authority, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the concerned authorities to consider and decide the pending application and representation submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 773 of 2011 vide order dated 08.02.2013, as expeditiously as possible. 7 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the competent authority shall take an independent decision in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge