1 2026:CGHC:26254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3160 of 2026 M/s. Jagdambe Coal Trading Company Through its Proprietor , Thakurdev Kotwani S/o Shri Tahalram Kotwani, Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 41 Ward No. 15, Rajeev Gandhi Ward, Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, Chakharbhata Camp Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Geology And Mining, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Deputy Director, Department Of Geology and Mining, Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Mining Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.03 12:52:59 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. AG SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (i) That, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/writ(s), direction/direction(s), order/order(s) for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.4/Collector, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/writ(s), direction/directions(s), order/order(s) directing the authorities to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, so that the objection raised by the petitioner in the letter dated 22.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P/13) can be decided by the authorities in a lawful manner after hearing the objections raised by the petitioner, the authorities may decide the application filed by the petitioner for renewal in accordance with law in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be 3 granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. iv. Cost of the petition may also be awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 2.6.2026 has not been passed in accordance with law. He submits that as per the proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009 (in short “the Rules, 2009”), when an application for grant of storage permit or its renewal is filed, the competent authority shall not refuse to grant or renew the permit for the whole or part of the area applied without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and without recording the reason for refusal in writing and communicating the reasons for refusal to the applicant. He further submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing as envisaged under the proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 2009. He submits that the competent authority, without assigning any cogent reasons, rejected the renewal application of the petitioner by stating that the proposed storage area falls within 25 km radius of the mining lease area. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that a field report was requisitioned, which clarified that the renewal could not be granted as the proposed storage area falls within the prohibited 25 km aerial distance from the mining lease area, 4 against which, he petitioner has filed applications/representations dated 10.4.2026, 7.4.2026 and 22.4.2026 respectively. He further submits that in the order/letter dated 14.5.2026, the concerned authority, duly considered the aforesaid applications of the petitioner, and stated the grounds of refusal to the petitioner. Subsequently the impugned order dated 2.6.2026 has been passed. In view of the above, he lastly submits that as per the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2009, an adequate opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representations filed by the petitoner have not been decided after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2009. 6. To appreciate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2009, which reads as under : Rule - 9. Disposal of application for storage permit or its renewal. (1) The competent authority after making such inquires as he/she may deem fit, grant or renewable the storage permit and shall issue such permit in Form-7 or refuse to grant or renewable the permit. Provided that the competent authority shall not 5 refuse to grant or renew the permit for the whole or part of the area applied without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and without recording the, reason for refusal in writing and communicating the reasons for refusal to the applicant: Provided that, if the application submitted: by the applicant is without accompanying proper document receipt challan of the fee, shall be rejected directly and it does not require inform the applicant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 2.6.2026, as there is nothing on record to show that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2009 has not been complied with. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 2.6.2026 is hereby quashed. The concerned Collector, while disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for storage permit and its renewal, is directed to pass an appropriate order after giving a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6 9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. This order is being passed only on the ground that the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2009 prescribes granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party before passing a reasoned order and compliance therewith is not reflected in the impugned order. 10. The matter is remitted to the concerned Collector to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 11.With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay