Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. These three cases have interwoven factual background. WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007 Is the origin for the Cont. Case (C) No. 220 of 2007 and WP(C) No. 4302 of 2007. The consideration, discussion and decision in the case of M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007 have the direct bearing on the other two cases. In that view, all the three cases have been heard simultaneously with the consent of the parties and the same are being disposed of by this synchronic order.

2. M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1460 of 2007, in his writ petition has sought quashing of the order of the State Government, respondent, dated 2nd March, 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease has been rejected without giving any heed to the order passed by the Central Government dated 5th August, 2005 while allowing the revision application of the petitioner as also the orders earlier passed by this Court on 12th December, 2005 and 5th December, 2006. The petitioner has also sought a direction to renew the lease of the petitioner.

3. The facts stated, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business, of mining.

(ii) The mining lease of iron-ore was granted to the petitioner on 4.1.1954 for a period of 20 years.

(iii) In the year 1974, the licence was renewed for the further period up to 3rd February, 1994.

(iv) As per the term of the lease, the petitioner made on application dated 30th January, 1993 for renewal of the mining lease for a further period of 20 years from 4th February, 1994 to 3rd February, 2014.

(v) In the meantime, on 13.12.1993, the Forest Department directed the petitioner to stop all mining activities in the lease area with effect from 5.2.1994.

(vi) Even though under the relevant rules, the lease was to be deemed to have been extended for a further period till the application for renewal is considered, the petitioner chose to stop the mining operation in view of the directions of the Forest Department. (vii) By order dated 1st September, 2004, the State Government rejected the petitioners application for renewal on the ground that the petitioner did not show any interest in the disposal of the renewal application.

(viii) On 17th September, 2004, the State Government took symbolic possession of the leased area.

(ix) Aggrieved by the refusal of the State Government to renew the lease, the petitioner filed revision application before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in September, 2004.

(x) In the meantime, In pursuance of the order dated 1st September, 2004, the State Government issued notification under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rues on 18th September, 2004, declaring the petitioners leasehold area available for regrant. (xi) The Central Government disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner by order dated 5th August, 2005 setting aside the order dated 1st September, 2004 of the State Government, whereby the application for renewal of the petitioners lease was rejected. The matter was remitted to the State Government for considering the issues afresh. (xii) State Government though intimated the petitioner that its Mining Lease renewal application may be reconsidered without prejudice to what has happened in the past, 11 years have elapsed after the mining activities were stopped by the State Government. (xiii) Against the said order dated 5th August, 2005 in revision, the State Government filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5765 of 2005.

(xiv) This Court, by an order dated 12th December, 2005 dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the order, whereby the State Government was directed to decide the petitioners application for renewal of mining lease afresh without being prejudiced by its earlier order of refusal.

(xv) On 24th March, 2006, State Government issued notice asking the petitioner to furnish several doc