BIRLA CEMENT WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred two revision petitions before the respondent no.1 Union of India and that too in the year 2007. The petitioner also sought interim relief from the revisional authority but no order yet has been passed. It is submitted that as the revision petition has not been decided, therefore, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice even then the respondents has not taken the decision. Since the respondents are not deciding the revision petitions, therefore, the petitioner has no remedy but to approach this Court for seeking relief that the State may not grant the mining lease to the respondent no.6.

(3.) I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.