Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Agrawal vs Secretary Department Of Mines And ... on 13 July, 2017
WP No.21759/2013, W.P.No.1145/2014, W.P.No.3311/2014 &
W.P.No.12426/2014
13-07-2017
Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.1-
Union of India.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.2 and
3. Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Harsh Pathak, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Argument of petitioner is that extraneous material was taken into consideration by the State Government while assessing suitability of respondent No.4 for grant of prospecting licence inasmuch as it was treated to be a part of Era Group of company, which has large scale involvement of infrastructure, power generation, real-estate and civil construction etc. It is argued that there is no material on the basis of which the State Government could take such aspect into consideration.
Prima facie, since the order makes the specific reference that the respondent No.4 is a part of Era Group, which has large turnover including thermal power generation etc, we deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to produce the record which was before it at the time of consideration of request of the prospecting licence.
List on 27.7.2017.
Interim order to continue till next date of hearing.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE C