Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the communication dt. 6.10.15 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, whereby the petitioner is directed not to proceed with the mining operation till his proposal for diversion of the forest land to be submitted in the prescribed proforma as prescribed vide circular dt. 17.7.15 issued by the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, is approved by the competent authority. The petitioner was granted a mining lease No. 68/72 by the State Government for mineral, soap stone and marble for a period of 20 years from 30.12.74 to 29.12.94. After grant of mining lease, the Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. As per the mandate of the provisions, the petitioner was required to obtain diversion of the forest land for the purpose of mining. The petitioner applied for diversion to the Environment & Forest Department, Government of India. The diversion applied for was granted for the forest land measuring 6 hectare, on the conditions specified, vide order dt. 15.3.2000. The period of diversion of the forest land was made co -terminus with the renewal period of the lease as admissible under relevant mining rules applicable. The mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was further renewed vide order dt. 24.7.2000 for a period of 20 years and accordingly, the mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 19.8.2000 for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 30.12.94. The petitioner applied for further renewal one year prior to scheduled expiry of the mining lease on 27.10.13. During the pendency of the renewal application, vide communication dt. 25.9.14 issued by the Forest Department followed by yet another communication dt. 29.12.14 issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Salumber, the petitioner was directed to stop mining activity. On the basis of the directions issued by the Forest Department as aforesaid, vide communication dt. 8.1.15, the Department of Mines directed the petitioner to stop the mining activity forthwith on the ground that the mining lease executed in its favour stands expired on 29.12.14.
(2.) In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No. 2213/15 before this Court questioning the legality of action of the respondents in restraining it from undertaking the mining operation in the mining area covered by the lease executed in its favour.
(3.) During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner made an application stating that in view of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 ('the Ordinance, 2015'), promulgated by the Central Government on 12.1.15 and the order dt. 1.4.15 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, pursuant thereto, the mining lease granted in its favour would have tenure of not less than 50 years and the period of validity of approval accorded shall also stand extended upto a period co -terminus with the period of mining lease and accordingly, prayed that the writ petition preferred deserves to be allowed.;