SURENDRA MOHAN SARDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that the concerned respondent authorities have not properly understood the order dated 27 th of February, 2007 delivered by this Court in wp (C) No. 747 of 2007. Initially, the writ petition was preferred by the present petitioner because, no decision was taken by the respondents upon an application preferred much before two and half decades for getting mining lease. Therefore, to expedite the hearing of an application of the petitioner the aforesaid WP (C) No. 747 of 2007 was instituted. It was decided vide order dated 27th of February, 2007 whereby a direction was given to the concerned respondent authorities to decide the claim of the present petitioner within a period of three months.

(2.) IT is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is already a vested right in the petitioner as per Section 11 (2)of the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the claim of the present petitioner cannot be brushed aside, without passing a reasoned order as directed by this Court vide order dated 27th of February, 2007. Despite direction given in the earlier writ petition, no order has been passed by the concerned respondent authorities and, therefore, suffice it will be for the disposal of the present writ petition, if a further direction is given to the concerned respondent authority to comply with an order dated 27th of february, 2007 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 747 of 2007 otherwise there are several other grounds raising objection about the notification issued by the respondent authority by the 1st March, 2007 which is in gross violation of the Section 11 (21 of the Act, 1957 as well as Rule 59 of the Mineral Concessions Rules 1960 but keeping these other issues open suffice it will be if the direction is given, again to the respondents authority to decide an application of the present petitioner as per order of this Court dated 27th February, 2007 passed in W. P. (C) No. 747 of 2007.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who have submitted that it is true that no order has been passed by the concerned respondent authorities after the earlier writ petition decided by this Court and despite there is a direction by this Court.