Hon’ble Vikram Nath, J.—This petition has been filed by one Jagdish Prasad Nishad, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing four orders, collectively filed as Annexure 1, issued by the State Government dated 4.12.2012, bearing Nos. 3558, 3559, 3557 and 3599, whereby respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been allowed to carry on mining activity for the obstructed period of their lease. Further relief claimed by the petitioner is to command the respondent authorities to restrain respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from carrying on any mining activity pursuant to the aforesaid four impugned orders, filed as Annexure 1. Lastly, it has been prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to settle the areas in question afresh in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Rules).

2. In para 5 of the petition it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were granted mining lease for a period of three years in the year 2010 and the respective lease period is given as follows :

“for respondent No. 4-from 04/1.2010 to 03/01/2013

for respondent No. 5-from 02/2.2010 to 01/02/2013

for respondent No. 6-from 22/1.2010 to 21/01/2013

for respondent No. 7-from 18/1.2010 to 17/01/2013"

The challenge to the impugned orders, extending the period of mining activity is firstly that the State Government had no competence or authority under the 1963 Rules framed under the powers conferred under Mines Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act). The petition also contains some averments to the effect that the petitioners are using machines for their mining work which is not otherwise permitted under law, and in particular in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 27.2.2012, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19628 and 19629 of 2009, Deepak Kumar etc. v. State of Haryana and others etc.

3. The State filed counter-affidavit. State Government in its counter-affidavit justified its competence and power as being flowing from Rule 68 of the 1963 Rules and further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court dated 19.9.2013, passed in Civil Appeal No. 8621 of 2013, J.P. Yadav v. Kanhaiya Singh and others, wherein the Apex Court had held that any obstructed period could be extended by the State while exercising its powers under Rule 68 of 1963 Rules. The Counter-affidavit further mentions that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Kausar Jah v. Union of India and others, 2011 (5) ADJ 125 (DB)(LB) the mining activity of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was stopped w.e.f. 1.7.2011 as the petitioners did not have the ‘environmental clearance certificate’ from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, but later on as the ‘environmental clearance certificate’ was obtained by the respondents 4 to 7 their request was duly considered and their period of mining for the obstructed period was extended. The State also took a preliminary objection that the petitioner had no locus to maintain the petition as it was not suffering from any legal injury.

4. The State also filed an affidavit duly sworn by the District Magistrate, Banda as was required by this Court.

5. The petitioner filed a very detailed rejoinder-affidavit annexing large number of judgments alongwith it. An additional point was raised in the rejoinder-affidavit that as the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 did not have the ‘environmental clearance certificate’ at the time of the initial grant of lease in the year 2010, their lease would be void ab initio as it was in violation of the circular of the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14.9.2006, which made it mandatory for all applicants for mining lease to obtain an ‘environmental clearance certificate’ from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. That being the situation of the original lease itself being void, no extension with regard to a void lease could b