D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners in this writ application have prayed for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing the order dated -23.04.2004 (Annexure -7), passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the Revision application preferred by the petitioner's predecessor in interest, namely, late Satyendra Prasad, under the provisions of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 , was dismissed as abated. (ii) For quashing the order dated -28.03.2006 (Annexure -8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the names of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have been substituted in place of the original lessee and an order for renewal of the mining lease in their names, has been passed. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are the sons of late Satyendra Prasad. The petitioner No. 1, whose name has been struck off from this writ application after her death, was the mother of the remaining petitioners and of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10.
(3.) THE subsisting dispute between the parties is in respect of the partition of the properties, which had belonged originally to the father, late Satyendra Prasad and in the present writ petition, the dispute involves the rival claim of succession to the mining lease, which was allotted to the father, late Satyendra Prasad.;