Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 240 (MP)

Satpuda Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M. P.

2013-02-25

K.K.LAHOTI, M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Heard on I.A.No. 1846/2013 an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Office has reported that this review petition is barred by 15 days. For the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit of Mr. Javed Mirza, Managing Director of Satpuda Construction Pvt. Ltd. applicant has made out a case of condonation of delay in filing the petition hence the aforesaid I.A is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. Also heard on review application. 2. This review petition is filed for seeking Review of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in W. P. No.17610/2012 by Single Bench of this Court, as the Judge who had passed this order during vacation, is not available at Jabalpur Bench so this matter has been placed before this Division Bench for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order dated 17.12.2012, a direction has been issued to the respondent no.2 Director (Mining) to decide the petitioner's application for renewal of the quarry lease keeping in view the provisions of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996; but the appropriate authority is respondent no.3 the Collector (Mining) to consider the aforesaid prayer. It is submitted that the aforesaid direction may be issued to the Collector (Mining) for consideration of the application for renewal of the lease. 3. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that till decision of the renewal of the lease the respondents may be restrained not to interfere in the mining activities of the petitioner. The lease period of mining is up to 28.3.2013. 4. So far as the first prayer of the petitioner in respect of modification of the direction for consideration of application for renewal of the quarry lease by respondent no.3 is concerned, Shri Rahul Jain, Dy. A.G. has no objection. 5. Considering the aforesaid, we modify in the order dated 27.12.2012 in W.P.No.17610/2012 and direct that the aforesaid application, now be considered and decided by respondent no.3 the Collector as agreed by the parties today. 6. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the directions against respondents for restraining them to interfere in the mining activities are concerned, the petitioner if so advised, may approach to the appropriate forum including writ Court for seeking the aforesaid direction. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this review petition is disposed of finally. 6. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the directions against respondents for restraining them to interfere in the mining activities are concerned, the petitioner if so advised, may approach to the appropriate forum including writ Court for seeking the aforesaid direction. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this review petition is disposed of finally. There shall be no order as to costs.