Virender Singh, J.

1. Challenge in these writ petitions are the various letters demanding penalty alleging illegal mining by the petitioners. Prayer has been for quashing the order as contained in letter No.1613/M Ranchi dated 31.07.2015 issued by Respondent No.4, for quashing paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the order as contained in letter No.286/M Ranchi dated 12.02.2015 issued by Respondent No.4 and for quashing the order as contained in letter No.891/M dated 03.08.2015 issued by Respondent No.5. Further prayer has been made commanding upon the respondent no. 2 and 3 to execute Supplementary Lease Deed for extension of period of mining lease and also for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to issue the forwarding notes/challans for dispatch of iron ore to the petitioner’s steel plant at Jamshedpur.

2. Service upon respondents is complete.

3. These cases have come before this Court for grant of interim relief only.

4. For better appreciation of the case, we are going into the facts of W.P.C No. 3768 of 2015, for the reason that in another writ petition being W.P. (C) No.396 of 2015, virtually the issue is same.

5. The petitioner-Company (hereinafter to be referred to as 'petitioner') is a mining lessee for Iron Ore in Noamundi, Dist. of West Singhbhum since 01.01.1922 and subsequently the lease was renewed twice for the period of thirty years each with effect from 01.01.1952-31.12.1981 and 01.01.1982-31.12.2011. Before the expiry of second renewal, the petitioner applied for third renewal and continued its mining operation during the pending of its application. The petitioner was granted Temporary Work Permission by the Ministry of Environment & Forest for the period of one year w.e.f 29.03.2012 and the same was extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.03.2013 for three months and again on 24.06.2013 for another three months. In the meantime, on 21.04.2014 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 held that the opinion of the State Government in terms of the section 8(3) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as 'MMDR Act') is sine qua non for carrying out mining operations under Rule 24A(6) of Mineral Concession Rules,1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'MCR Rules') for the period prior to the execution of renewed mining lease in the case of second and subsequent renewal. Thereafter the Central Government amended Rule 24A(6) in MCR, 1960 and the provision of deemed renewal is deleted. The petitioner discontinued its mining operation on 31.08.2014 and sought formal orders under erstwhile section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and when the order was not made a writ being W.P.C No. 5225 of 2014 was filed and by judgment dt. 11.12.2014 the State Government was directed to issue express orders under erstwhile 8(3) of the MMDR Act. In compliance of the order dt. 11.12.2014 the State Government passed an order under section 8(3) of MMDR Act on 31.12.2014 but reduced the area from 1160.60 hec. to 768.55 hec. by deducting the forest land and further demanded penalty of Rs.3568.32 Crores towards alleged mining. The petitioner challenged the demand of penalty by filing a writ being W.P.C No. 6459 of 2014 which is pending in this court. After grant of the express order the petitioner made payment of Rs.152 Crore to the State Govt. under protest and resumed its mining operation on 01.01.2015. The Central Government, in the meantime, made an amendment in MMDR Act, 1957 by Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 8A(5) was introduced to the MMDR Act w.e.f 12.01.2015. The State Government by order dt. 12.02.2015 modified the earlier order dt. 31.12.2014 and extended the period of mining lease upto 31.03.2030 with respect to the reduced area subject to the payment of demand earlier raised vide order dt. 31.12.2014. The petitioner, thereafter, repeatedly requested for renewal of its mining lease but the State raised demand of Rs.421.83 Crore and stopped fr