ORDER :

1. In all these petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. For convenience, the facts of the lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 975/2021 are taken for consideration.

2. Application for dismissal of the writ petition as also for vacating the stay has been filed by respondents mainly on the ground that in view of subsequent developments, the issues raised in these matters are now limited.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that this Court entertained the writ petition though it was only against the show cause notice as constitutional validity of Rule 24 of the Minerals (other than atomic and hydro carbon energy minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (‘Rules of 2016’ for short) was assailed. He would submit that during the pendency of the petition, Rule 24 itself has now been deleted. Therefore, now what remains is the challenge to the show cause notice dated 10.12.2020 issued by respondent No.4. He would further submit that the petitioner, instead of contesting the matter before the concerned authority and without filing any revision petition, a statutory remedy provided under the MMDR Act, 1957, filed this writ petition under the garb of challenging the validity of Rule only to avoid replying to the show cause notice. He would further submit that in the matter of dispute between the parties, in so far as mining lease is concerned, notice was issued on 25.02.2020 on the similar ground relating to transfer of ownership, one of the grounds stated in the impugned show cause notice in the present case, the petitioner filed revision petition before the tribunal. Therefore, in the changed circumstances, when the issue of validity of Rule no longer survives, the petitioner may be relegated to the channel of remedy provided under the law.

4. The aspect of transfer of ownership has already been raised by the petitioner before the revisional authority where the matter is pending consideration.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General would also submit that now the controversy in the case is only with regard to the show cause notice and relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Krishna Wax Private Limited [(2020) 12 SCC 572], he would submit that it would no longer be appropriate for this Court to entertain petition only against the show cause notice and the writ petitioner must raise all the objections before the authorities who had issued the show cause notice and if at all aggrieved, invoke alternative remedy of filing revision petition before the revisional authority.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would jointly submit that the challenge to the show cause notice is not based on any ground relating to lack of jurisdiction of the authority who issued notice nor it can be said to be a case where the authority has prejudged the issue or acted with malice so as to warrant interference. The last submission of learned AAG is that in any case, in view of MMDR Amendment Act, 2021 inserting new proviso, all the applications and proceedings relating to prospecting license lapsed and therefore this writ petition no longer survives for consideration.

7. Replying to arguments for dismissal of the writ petition of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though after amendment and deletion of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2016, relief in that regard no longer survives for consideration, there are other substantial issues particularly the important legal issue which would require consideration of the writ Court as to whether merely on account of transfer of share it could be said to be a case of change of ownership of the company. In his submission, even with respect to the amalgamation, promoter company remains the same as merger and amalgamation are merely internal reconstruction affairs, therefore, cannot be regarded as transfer. Placing reliance