JUDGMENT :

I. Mahanty, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present special appeal has come to be filed against the directions dated 18.03.2021 issued by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15114/2016.

3. It appears that the impugned order came be passed on the basis of an application moved by the State for vacation of an earlier interim order dated 09.01.2017 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The said interim order dated 09.01.2017 reads as under:

"By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant and execute the mining lease to the petitioner in terms of Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 5.12.14 issued in its favour for grant of mining lease of mining area 180 Hectares situated at Village-Dipas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Government communicated its approval in terms of Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1956 (for short 'the MMDR Act, 1957') vide communication dated 9.12.13 for grant of mining lease to the petitioner and the State Government decided to grant the mining lease to the petitioner on 5.12.14 by way of issuing LoI, however, on account of failure on the part of the respondents in taking further steps for necessary clearance of Department of Forest and Department of Environment, the mining lease could not be executed in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the petition, on 6.1.17, 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) has already been issued by the Department of Forest in favour of the petitioner. That apart, it is submitted that the Government of India has issued a notification dated 4.1.17, clarifying that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), where the condition of obtaining environment clearance has not been complied with by the applicant on or before 11.1.17, but all other conditions specified in previous approval of Letter of Intent have been fulfilled, the applications shall be considered under the said Section and mining lease shall be granted by the concerned State Govt. in accordance with the notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and therefore, there is no reason as to why the respondents should not execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner.

It is submitted that the application of the petitioner stands saved under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act, 1957, but if the mining lease is not allotted in its favour on or before 11.1.17, the same would automatically stands lapsed and thus, it is absolutely necessary that the respondents are directed to execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner pending fulfillment of requirement of obtaining the environment clearance.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State has no objection if the directions are issued by this Court to execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner on fulfillment of other requirements pending issuance of Environment Clearance by the Government of India.

Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioner on or before 11.1.2017 pending issuance of Environment Clearance by the Government of India. The allotment of mining lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of this interim order shall not create any right in favour of the petitioner and the same shall be subject to decision of this writ petition. On the basis of execution of the mining lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled to commence the mining activity pending disposal of the petition.

Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Assistant Solicitor General seek three weeks time to file reply to the writ petition.

T