( 1 ) MATTER is listed for orders. Two impleading applications are filed in addition to the one for vacating the stay. All the applications are taken up together for consideration. Petition is also taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel on either side argued both on the I. As. as well as on the main matter to save time. ORDER ON I. A. NO. 1 FOR IMPLEADING

( 3 ) ONE M/s. Mineral Enterprises Private Limited seeks to come on record in the given set of circumstances. According to the affidavit, the impugned lands measuring 515. 98 acres are notified in terms of Notification dated 15-6-1999. The Government without following the procedure prescribed in law decided to approve the grant of mining lease in favour of one of the aspirants, and, that was challenged by the petitioner in WP No. 31728 of 2001. A writ appeal was filed, and, in the writ appeal the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed with slight modification. In these circumstances, the impleading applicant says that it has some interest in the matter, and, therefore wants to come on record.

( 4 ) SAME was opposed by filing objections. In the objections, it is stated that the impleading applicant cannot come on record and that the application filed by the impleading applicant in terms of Annexure-Z suffers from various errors.

( 5 ) SRI G. S. Vishweshwara, learned counsel for the petitioner would say that a reading of the application in terms of Annexure-Z would show that the petitioner is not clean in submitting his affidavit. He says that his only prayer in this petition is for a direction for providing lands on account of losing certain lands in the given case. Sri D. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant would say that the error of date in the application may be a mistake and that should not come in the way of the applicant coming on record in the interest of justice.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that in the light of the impleading applicant having some interest in the matter in terms of the earlier proceedings, he cannot be said to be a foreigner in this case. He has some interest in the matter in terms of the earlier proceedings and in terms of the affidavit. A mere error in the application does not by itself vitiate the impleading application filed by the applicant.

( 7 ) IMPLEADING application is therefore allowed. Petitioner is directed to amend the petition by impleading the present impleading applicant as Respondent No. 4 order ON I. A. NO. III FOR IMPLEADING

( 8 ) THERE is one more application by Sri Chidanandaiah, learned counsel for the applicant in IA No. III. In the said application applicant Babanna is seeking to come on record in the case on hand. According to the affidavit, on an earlier occasion the impugned lands were granted in his favour and the said grant was set aside at the instance of M/s Mineral Enterprises Private Limited in WP No. 19291 of 2001. An appeal was filed. In the appeal, the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed with certain modifications. Babanna also made an application in respect of these lands. Therefore, he wants to come on record. Same is opposed.

( 9 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 10 ) IN the light of the earlier proceedings and for the reasons mentioned in the impleading application, I deem it proper to allow this application also in the given set of circumstances. Petitioner is directed to amend the petition and to implead the applicant as Respondent No. 5. ORDERS ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER

( 11 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the matter. Since hearing of the IAs for vacating the stay is as good as hearing on hearing the main matter, matter is heard for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel.

( 12 ) PETITIONER Rajashekhar states that a mining lease was granted to him in terms of the lease dated 31-3-1986. He is operating the area in question for a period o