JUDGMENT 1. - At request, in view of the controversy, matter was finally heard at admission stage. 2. Instant petition has been filed with a sole grievance that despite revision petition preferred by petitioner U/r 30 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR Act") being allowed by Central Government vide order dated 08/09/06 (Ann.2) and while remanding the case to State Government directed to consider his renewal application on merits after affording him an opportunity of hearing, since matter remained pending with State Government for last two & half years, it has constrained him to file instant petition. 3. In instant petition, notices were issued on 11/09/08 which were duly served upon respondents as is evident from office note sheet dated 20/01/09. But no efforts were made by respondents to file reply to instant petition. 4. However, notice was served on 12/03/09 CW 9797/08 calling upon petitioner to fulfill certain requirements so that his application could be considered by State Government in pursuance of order of remand passed by Central Government dated 08/09/06 (Ann.2). 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that despite information of remand order (Ann.2) of Central Government being furnished in the office of respondents and all requirements on his part being completed, still no action was taken by State Government in regard to his renewal application for last two & half years that has caused prejudice to him. 6. Since there was no reply filed by State Government, vide order dated 08/04/09 this Court directed respondents to keep relevant record ready for perusal on next day in pursuance whereof, record has been produced. It appears from the record that order dated 08/09/06 of revisional authority (Ann.2), by which matter was remanded to State Govt. to consider renewal application of petitioner afresh in accordance with law, for the first time was taken note of on 04/10/06 but subsequent order sheets shows that matter was sent from one officer to the other but no one has taken care to inform the petitioner at any point of time that there was any requirement on his part to be fulfilled while revisional authority vide order (Ann.2) had directed respondents (State Govt) to afford opportunity of hearing to him. The record does not disclose as to what effective steps were taken by authority in compliance of remand order (Ann.2). 7. The record does not disclose as to what effective steps were taken by authority in compliance of remand order (Ann.2). 7. Departmental remedies are provided with an object that an error if committed by subordinate officer at any stage can be rectified on re-appreciation of record and person may not rush to the Court for every wrong committed; but it appears that people are approaching to Courts obviously because nowadays departmental remedies provided under law are not being considered to be effective and efficacious, and instant case is one of such instances arising out of lethargic attitude at the administrative level that even after matter was remanded by revisional authority vide order dated 08/09/06 (Ann.2), despite having taken note of on 04/10/06, for last two & half years having rolled by, no efforts were made to afford opportunity to petitioner who was certainly an affected person, so as to take decision in accordance with law and act of State Government having not complied with order of remand (Ann.2) has certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner whose rights are directly affected. 8. Government Counsel on instructions informs that since requirements have been fulfilled by petitioner in reference to notice dated 11/03/09, his application would be considered in accordance with law within short period as may be extended by this Court. 9. It was expected from the State authority to dispose of pending matter without person aggrieved being dragged to this Court. Officers must keep in mind that they are accountable to the society and are under legal obligation to decide pending applications for renewal expeditiously since its pendency certainly caused prejudice to the person aggrieved. 10. Before parting with this order, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that while considering pending application of petitioner in compliance of order of remand (Ann.2), respondents State Govt., should also make the officer accountable on whose fault, rights of petitioner has been prejudiced resulting into unnecessarily dragging him to this Court for redressal of his grievance and necessary action may be taken against him. 11. With the observations (supra), writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider and dispose of renewal application of petitioner in terms of order of remand dated 08/09/06 (Ann.6) in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner expeditiously but not later than two months from today. 11. With the observations (supra), writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider and dispose of renewal application of petitioner in terms of order of remand dated 08/09/06 (Ann.6) in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner expeditiously but not later than two months from today. Petitioner may appear in person before competent authority on 27/04/09.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******