JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition is filed for seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the transfer application made by the petitioner on 15.05.2018 as deemed to have been granted after expiry of 90 days i.e. on 13.08.2018. Further, it is prayed that after such application is deemed to have been granted, the respondents may complete necessary formalities in the matter of transfer of mining lease of petitioner No.1 to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners also have challenged communication at 13.05.2021 rejecting the aforesaid transfer application, but the said prayer will not survive since the respondent authority has withdrawn the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 A mining order dated 30.11.1981 came to be issued under Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the MMDR Act") in favour of the petitioner No.1 sanctioning the grant of a mining lease of Bauxite, which is a major mineral listed in Part C of the First Schedule of the MMDR act. Thereafter, a mining lease deed dated 19.04.1982 came to be executed in favour of the petitioner No.1 for a period of 20 years. The petitioner No.1, by application dated 15/23.03.2001 had applied for renewal of the lease deed dated 19.04.1982. The petitioner No.1 preferred a transfer application dated 12.10.2009 under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the respondent No.3-Collector for transfer of the lease dated 19.04.1982 in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner No.1 thereafter, preferred transfer application dated 15.12.2011. A joint affidavit dated 21.01.2012 came to be executed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with regard to transfer of the lease dated 19.04.1982 in their names giving consent to the transfer of mining lease and accepting all the conditions and liabilities, which the petitioner No.1 was having in respect of lease. The said affidavit was in consonance with Sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 37 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960. Thereafter, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 also addressed a similar letter dated 01.02.2012 to the respondent No.3-Collector again requesting to transfer the lease dated 19.04.1982 in their names.

2.2 The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 entered into partnership namely, ICV Enterprise and applied for registration under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005 (for short "the 2005 Prevention Rules"). Consequently, the respondent No.4-Geologist issued an order dated 05.07.2012.

2.3 In furtherance of the transfer application dated 15.12.2011, the petitioner No.1 also executed a bank guarantee dated 28.12.2012 in favour of the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Udaipur for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under Rule 23F of the Mineral Conservation of Development Rules, 1998. The respondent No.4, by the letter dated 09.01.2013 requested the petitioner No.1 to clarify as to in whose name the lease dated 19.04.1982 is to be transferred, pursuant to the transfer application dated 15.12.2011, because earlier another application dated 12.10.2009 was also made. Petitioner No.1 replied by the letter dated 22.01.2013 to the Assistant Geologist informing that the lease is to be transferred jointly in the names of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the earlier application dated 12.10.2009 be cancelled. Thereafter, the respondent No.4, by the letter dated 30.01.2013 called upon the petitioner No.1 to submit various documents/information for the purpose of processing the transfer application dated 15.12.2011 and the letter dated 22.01.2013 of petitioner No.1.

2.4 The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by the letter dated 20.08.2016 requested the respondent No.4 to immediately take appropriate steps with respect to their letter dated 07.01.2015 for transfer of lease. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1, by the letter dated 30.01.2017 requested the respondent No.4 to complete further procedure for transfer of lease. The petit