BALAJI ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFECTS ignored.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the case.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant, the petitioner was aggrieved against the revisional order and, therefore, preferred writ petition and at the same time another issue for consideration in the writ petition was with respect to the delay in giving certain clearance by the Central Government as well as against the non renewal of the mining lease. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant that before the learned Single Judge the petitioner pressed both the points but the learned Single Judge took note of the one issue, that is petitioner has applied for the renewal of the lease and sought environmental clearance which are pending consideration before the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge impressed by the short point of renewal of lease and environmental clearance and decided the writ petition vide impugned order dated 23.01.2013 and issued directions to the Central Government to take appropriate decision on the application seeking environmental clearance as well as for renewal of lease in accordance with law within two months. Then learned Single Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the spot and no third party interest shall be created by the parties. Finding this the petitioner - appellant submitted a Civil Review Petition No. 05 of 2013, which was decided by another Single Judge on 3.04.2013. The Review Petition of the petitioner also dismissed on the ground that learned Single Judge has taken note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly decided the matter.