Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. By means of the present Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the Mining Policy of the State and the subsequent action taken by the State Government for allowing sublease of mining to private individuals, in a forest area.

2. All the necessary parties, such as the State of Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation as well as by the Union of India have filed their counter affidavits in the matter. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his principal contention regarding the illegality has not been specifically denied by the State and the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, which would mean an admission on their part and, therefore he does not want to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is, therefore, being decided finally after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respective respondents.

3. The principal contention of the petitioner before this Court is that under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in order to undertake a non forest activity in a forest area, prior approval of Government of India is necessary. Admitt