HUKUM SINGH PAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 /227 of Constitution does not assail any specific order but seeks following reliefs :-

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, it appears that principal grievance of the petitioner is that qua survey No.10 ad- measuring 21.322 hectares of land, lease hold rights were extended in favour of several persons by order dated 25/09/2014 of Collector, Gwalior which was challenged by the petitioner herein in appeal before the Government of M.P. which was decided by order dated 06/10/2016 by setting aside the order of Collector dated 25/09/2014 to the extent that the same adversely affects the interest of the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Director, Geology and Mining, who by order dated 25/05/2017 (P/3) dismissed the appeal of petitioner by upholding the earlier order dated 25/09/2014 of the Collector. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal before the State Govt. against the order dated 25/05/2017 of the Director, Geology and Mines. The State Govt. on 08/10-05-2018 set aside the order dated 25/09/2014 of the Collector and as well as order dated 25/05/2017 of Director, Geology and Mines and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner directing the Collector, Gwalior to proceeds in terms of Rule 18 of M.P.Minor Minerals Rules 1986. Dissatisfied, the petitioner yet again moved the State Govt. by filing a review against the order dated 08/10-05-2018. 2.1 In the aforesaid background it is submitted that the review petition was heard finally by the Minister in-charge of Geology and Mines who passed an order in the file allowing the review petition, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P/7 which is though not signed but it is urged by counsel for the petitioner that decision has been taken by the competent authority in the said review in favour of the petitioner but due to extraneous consideration and to achieve unlawful motive to prevent justice to reach the petitioner, formal order has not been passed. As such prayer is made in this petition to respondents/State to pass the final order along with review petition preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) The short reply filed by the State is to the effect that mere noting in the note-sheet of the file does not amount to passing of formal order in terms of Article 166 of Constitution and thus, in the absence of any such formal order issued in the name and under the authority of the Governor in terms of the rules of business of State Govt. under Article 166 of Constitution, no right accrues to the petitioner to seek any writ, order or direction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.