Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/308/2024 of M/S D.P. RAI Vs COLLECTOR on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 308 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
M/S D.P. RAI THROUGH ABHISHEK RAI A/A 45 OCC.PARTNER AT M/S D.P. RAI R/O. 10, EAST HIGH COURTROAD RAMDASPETH NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA(MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHREYASH DHARMADHIKARI - ADVOCATE AND SHRITEERTHESH BHARILYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.COLLECTOR MINES DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.)(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MINING OFFICER , DISTRICT BALAGHAT(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagupassed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The limited prayer sought in this petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is to decide the representation contained in Annexure P/3and to execute the lease deed submitted by the petitioner before the Collector,Balaghat as early as in 2015 with the further prayer to execute the leaseagreement which was submitted to the Collector, Balaghat pursuant to his order
2. Learned counsel for State after seeking instructions, has no objection if the petition is disposed of in the following terms :
3. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in the following terms :
i.) The petitioner shall make a fresh representationalong with copy of this order passed today which ifmade within 30 days from today to Collector, Balaghatthen the said authority shall consider and decide theearlier representation dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure P/3)as expeditiously as possible preferably within a periodof 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this orderand pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
ii.) Since the Court has not expressed anything on meritsof the claim of extension of lease, the competentauthority is free to take decision in accordance with lawbut if the decision is adverse to the interest of thepetitioner, then reasoned order shall be passed inaccordance with law and the same shall becommunicated to the petitioner within 30 days.
(SHEEL NAGU)JUDGEShub
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE