By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.

2. This writ petition has been filed inter alia with the prayers for issuance of (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the tender notice dated 8th/11th March, 2013, issued by respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure 1, to the writ petition; and (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 not to proceed further with the processing of tender notice dated 8th/11th March, 2013, as contained in Annexure 1 and settle the areas in question only after notifying the tender notice afresh in line with the Government Order dated 31st May, 2012 read with the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2013, passed in Writ-C No. 37725 of 2012 and other connected matters.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Akhilesh Kalra submitted that the impugned tender notice requires obtaining of Environmental Clearance Certificate within six months by the applicant, which according to him, is contrary to the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 37725 of 2012 (Nar Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) and the connected matters in the bunch. The relevant discussion about the question as to who (the State Government or the applicant) should be required to obtain the environmental clearance, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court as passed in the case in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629, in the judgment of Nar Narayan Mishra is reproduced as:

“It is submitted that in case a person who has been approved for granting mining lease fails to obtain environmental clearance within a period of six months, the order granting lease shall stand cancelled is arbitrary and unjustifiable since for environmental clearance more than six months time is statutorily provided and further a person applying for environmental clearance has no control on the authorities who are entrusted to grant environmental clearance. Such condition is unjust and shall cause great prejudice to a person who has been granted lease after completion of all formalities.”

Thus, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the impugned tender notice being contrary to the above observations of the Court requiring the applicant-petitioner to obtain the Environmental Clearance Certificate, would not be sustainable in law and hence deserves to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Smt. Bulbul Godial, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that the State Government has already notified the rules dated 23.12.2012, which has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment by the Division Bench at Allahabad. It is further submitted that a Government order dated 26.2.2013 has been issued later in order to supplement the aforesaid rules so as to cover the subject as to who namely, the applicant or the State Government would be under the obligation to obtain the Environmental Clearance Certificate. The relevant paragraph of the Government order, being in Hindi, is produced as :

“6. 'kklukns’k fnukWd 31 ebZ] 2012 ds izLrj&3 esa mfYyf[kr fcUnq la[;k&7 tks Ik;kZoj.k LoPNrk izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrqr djus ls lacaf/kr gS dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fnukWd 29 tuojh] 2013 ds }kjk vkSfpR;iw.kZ vo/kkfjr ugh fd;k gSA vr% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr vo/kkj.k ds izdk’k esa mDr 'krZ dks 'kklukns’k fnukWd 31 ebZ] 2012 ls foyksfir le>k tk;s rFkk vc fufonknkrk dk ;g mRrjnkf;Ro gksxk fd og vkSicaf/kd Lohd`fr izkIr djus ds mijkUr 'kh?kzrj Ik;kZoj.k LoPNrk izek.k i= izkIr dj izLrqr djs rFkk Ik;kZoj.k LoPNrk izek.k i= izkIr gksus ds mijkUr gh [kuu iV~Vk foys[k fu"ikfnr fd;k tk;sxkA

5. Learned Additional Advocate General also contends that in the gazette notification dated 6.4.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, it has been provided as:

“(I) In para 6, for the existing words “An application seeking prior