1 2026:CGHC:16796-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 294 of 2026 1 - Ashish Dahariya S/o Manohar Lal Dahariya, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Jora, Bhatapara, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mining Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Mining Branch, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mining Officer, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Mining Officer, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13-04-2026 1. The present writ appeal filed by the writ appellant who was petitioner in the writ petition, against the impugned order dated Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.20 12:40:55 +0530 2 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single judge in WPC No.6229/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted an excavation lease of mining sand on Khasra No.1 area 4.50 hectare of Mahanadi at Village Dhaba, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Khasra No.2 area 4.50 hectare at Village Rajpur, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari and Khasra No.403 area 4.99 hectare at Village Joratarai, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari by the Mines and Mineral Department Dhamtari vide letter dated 25.09.2019. The petitioner deposited Rs.5,00,000/- for each mine as security deposit under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Excavation and Business) Rules, 2019 (in short ‘the Rules, 2019’) and also submitted the excavation plan which has been approved on 23.10.2019 and environmental clearance from the competent authority was also obtained an 31.12.2019. After completing the required formalities, an agreement was executed for sand query lease for a period of two years from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2022. At the end of the said query lease the petitioner submitted his application for extension of the lease period for a further period of one year under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2019. The petitioner has completed the process for filing of the application, but his application was not forwarded to the District Registrar Dhamtari for its registration and the query lease could not be extended. The petitioner filed a review application before the Director, Geology and Mining, which was registered as Review Case No.30/2022, 31/2022 and 33/2022. The said Review application of the petitioner was allowed on 30.05.2022 and the 3 competent authority has been directed that the security deposit shall not be confiscated. The case was then sent back to the Collector Dhamtari for completion of the execution/registration of the agreement for extension of query lease in favour of the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Director, Geology and Mineral, C.G. the lease agreement was executed and mining lease was extended from 06.01.2022 to 05.01.2023. However, there was clerical mistake on the dates in the order that the previous lease was from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2022, however, in the impugned order it has been mentioned as 06.01.2022 to 05.01.2022. In the above document the lease agreement was extended retrospectively by the order dated 24.11.2022 after lapse of 11 months of the said lease period. Against the order dated 24.11.2022 the petitioner filed WPC No.261/2023 before this Court which was disposed of on 17.01.2023 by the learned Single Judge permitting the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the competent authorities. When the representation made by the petitioner have not been considered by the authorities he again filed WPC No.3799/2023 which was again disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 24.08.2023 directing the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. Another WPC No.5109/2023 was filed by the petitioner for refund of the amount of bank guarantee submitted by him before the Collector, Mining Branch Dhamtari. The said writ petition was also withdrawn on 04.01.2024 with liberty to file fresh representation before the Collector Dhamtari. It is also the case of the petitioner that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner has also 4 been disposed of on 15.06.2024. Ultimately the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, WPC No.6229/2024 claiming the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction and quash/ set aside the communication dated 05.10.2023 issued by the respondent No. 4. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction and quash/ set aside the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 and further be pleased to directed the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order regarding the extension of the lease period with prospective effect for Khasra No. 01 at Village Dhaba, Tehsil Magarlod, Khasra No. 2 at Village Rajpur, and Khasra No. 403 at Village Joratarai, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The writ petition (WPC No.6229/2024) filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2026 and after hearing the parties, the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the lease granted to the petitioner has already 5 expired on 05.01.2022, its extension was also only upto 05.01.2023 and the said extended period has also expired, the petitioner has also obtained the refund of the entire security amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- for each mine) and the contractual relationship between the parties stands concluded and there is no subsisting leasehold right remains in favour of the petitioner. It has also been held by the learned Single Judge that the prospective extension of lease cannot be granted when the contractual terms has already been expired and the extension of mining lease is governed by the statutory rules made by the Government from time to time. The said order dated 10.02.2026 is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the petitioner has already applied for extension of lease well withing time and during subsistence of the lease, however, it is the authorities who have not decided his application within time and therefore, even if the lease has been expired the same can be extended in view of the fact that the application for extension has already been made by the petitioner withing the existence of the lease, despite repeated order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court the authorities concerned has not decided his representation within time and the petitioner cannot be put at any fault. He has complied all the formalities in the earlier lease and there is no any complaint of violation of any lease condition. He would also submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge that no subsisting right survived is illegal, and unsustainable. The relationship between the parties was not purely 6 contractual relation, but was governed by statutory rules under the Rules, 2019. The dispute involving public elements making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the communication dated 05.10.2023 was only an internal correspondence, whereas, the said communication directly affects the writ appellant’s right and denial of extension of lease rights. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material illegality and irregularity and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 7. From the pleadings it transpires that the petitioner was initially granted sand lease for the period from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2022 and thereafter it was extended upto 05.01.2023 and the said extended period has already expired. The petitioner could not dispute that he also obtained refund of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- for each mine) in compliance of the order in WPC No.5109/2023. Secondly, the said writ petition was filed by the petitioner himself for refund of the amount which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner himself was intended to conclude the lease agreement after its expiration. From the submission of the parties, it is clear that the presently sand mining lease granted to the petitioner has been expired and the petitioner has obtained the refund of the security deposit and thus, in absence of any specific order 7 of extension of lease or agreement the contractual relation between the parties came to an end, though the petitioner made several representations to the authorities concerned, however, merely making representation does not make him entitled for extension of sand mining lease. The learned Single Judge has also considered that once the lease period has been expired and the security deposit has been refunded at the instance of the petitioner, the contractual relation between them stands concluded and thus the petitioner cannot claim for extension of the sand mining lease. 8. In view of the above discussion and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the impugned order has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil