The Court emphasized the provisional grant of renewal subject to the final notification and the obligation of the competent authority to consider renewal applications in accordance with law and court observations.

Grievance involved in all these cases is with regard to the non- consideration of the applications for renewal of permits for conducting quarrying operations.

2. When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on 24.10.2014, a common interim order was passed in the following terms.

"These writ petitions are filed by the existing quarry operators whose permits have been expired and the Department have refused to renew the quarrying permit for the reason that final notification in terms of Section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 is yet to be notified. The exclusion and inclusion of these areas cannot be decided in praesenti. The Government has also taken a stand before the National Green Tribunal in OA.No.26 of 2012 that existing mining licence will not be renewed until the final notification is issued. The apprehension of the Government is that even though this area will not form part of the draft notification dated 10.03.2014, by renewal of quarrying permit, it is likely to fall within the ecologically sensitive area while issuing a final notification of ecologically sensitive area.

2. The Director of Mining and Geology have filed a detailed statement opposing the prayers of the petitioners. Considering the stand taken before the National Green Tribunal, it is submitted by the Director that the petitioners' permit cannot be renewed. The learned Government Pleader also sought time for filing a detailed statement by the Government. The learned Government Pleader submits that a detailed statement on the side of the Government is necessary as this a larger issue affecting the people in the surrounding area and it is not a mere issue of mining alone. It is further submitted that, if any renewal is granted, that will jeopardize the final notification and also will be against the public interest.

3. I have perused the order passed by the National Green Tribunal dated 25.9.2014 and specifically adverted to paragraph 9, wherein the affidavit filed by the Secretary of MoEF is referred. In the affidavit, it seems that the MoEF has stated that the ecologically sensitive area, as stated in the draft notification dated 10.3.2014, forms the basis for demarcation of ESA by physical verification by the State Governments of Western Ghats region. It is also stated that the State Governments of Western Ghats region, may after undertaking demarcation of ESA by physical verification, propose the exclusion/inclusion of certain areas from/in the Ecologically Sensitive Area as stated in the draft notification S.O.No.733(E) dated 10.3.2014. Such proposals of the State Governments received after physical verification, would be examined by the Ministry before taking a view on further appropriate action including inter-alia issuing a fresh draft notification, if required, to seek objections from the public on the proposals received from the State Governments of Western Ghats.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out at Ext.R2(c), the Office Memorandum of Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 20-12-2013. In clause 5 of the memorandum it is stated as follows: "It is also reiterated that the prohibition of identified categories of projects/activities as stated under para 2(vii) above, in the ESA shall apply to new and/or expansion of these activities from the date specified therein. The existing projects/ activities under these categories may continue, according to law, except for existing mines which should be phased out within the next 5 years or expiry of their mine lease, whichever is earlier."

And submits that even existing mining activities within these areas are permitted for five years or the expiry of the mining period. Therefore, the area which is excluded by draft notification unless and until it falls within this area is notified, the authority cannot refuse consideration of renewal of licence. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out Rule 5(c) of the Environment (Protection) Rules a