ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5211/2021 (Dalpat Singh Chundawat Vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 18.07.2023. The said order reads as follows :

“1. Since in all these cases (list of which is enclosed with this order as Schedule ‘A’, which shall be treated as part of this order), common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

The petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the impugned orders whereby their Letter of Intents/Prospecting Licenses (for short, ‘LoIs/PLs) have been cancelled.

2. For the purpose of deciding this batch of writ petitions, it is deemed proper and appropriate to consider the facts of the case in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5211/2021, which has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order (Annex.8) dated 10.2.2021 may be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences as if these orders were never passed and issued.

(ii) By an appropriate order or direction the order dated 29.12.2014 (Annex.) whereby the LoI has been issued in favour of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored with a direction to the respondents to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) Pending decision and final disposal of the writ petition the respondents may be restrained from granting the area in question to any other person.”

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for mining lease (M.L. No.607/2011) on 23.12.2011 for mineral Quartz and Feldspar at Village Kenwara, Tehsil Deogarh, District Rajsamand. Along with the application, requisite fees and requisite documents as required under Rule 9(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1960’) were also submitted. Thereafter, in compliance of the notice and direction, the petitioner deposited Pre-demarcation fees. During the process, a communication was issued by the Mining Engineer, Amet to the Deputy Conservator, Forest for ascertaining the fact that whether the area in question falls in the forest, who in turn, informed that the area for which application had been filed, does not fall in the forest. After completing all the formalities and process, a LoI dated 29.12.2014 (Annex.1) was issued in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted the approved mining plan with progressive mine closure plan dated 16.06.2015 (Annex.2).

4. Thereafter, without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondent-State issued an order dated 17.10.2015 whereby all the LoIs/ Prospecting Licenses, issued between the period from 01.11.2014 to 12.01.2015 stood cancelled and the Principal Secretary, Mining Department, directed the Director to issue necessary orders in this regard vide communication dated 17.01.2015 along with which a list of LoIs/ Prospecting Licenses was also issued in which petitioner’s name appeared at S.No.201. Pursuant to communication dated 17.01.2015 (Annex.3), the Director authorized the concerned Mining Engineer to issue formal compliance order cancelling the LoIs/Prospecting licenses issued between the period from 01.11.2014 to 12.01.2015 and the LoI dated 29.12.2014, granted in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled vide order dated 20.10.2015 (Annex.4).

5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders before this Court, which came up for hearing on 08.08.2018 along with other bunch of connected petitions and the same were decided in terms of the order dated 30.08.2017 in the case of M/s. Karni Mines & Minerals Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Sated BCWP No.8179/2016), wherein this Court quashed and set aside the order dated 17.10.2015 so also the formal order of cancellation dated 20