MISRA, J. - (1.) ALL these applications have been filed of a direction to the respondent State for allowing the applicants to conduct the mining operations in the areas, which according to them, had been granted to them by virtue of mining lease.
(2.) IT appears that a public interest litigation had been filed bearing D. B. C. W. P. l (PIL) No. 4783/2003, wherein the Division Bench earlier had constituted a Committee to examine the mining operations in various areas at Jaipur and its surrounding areas and the Committee submitted a report stating therein that only 5 owners of the mines were allowed to conduct the mining operations as those mining areas did not fall into the forest area. The report of the Committee was accepted and the writ petition was disposed of finally by order dated 20. 10. 2004. After the matter stood finally concluded, successive applications have been filed by various other mine owners including these applicants seeking a direction from this Court in the same writ petition, which stood disposed of, that they should also be allowed to be impleaded and they be allowed to conduct mining operations in the area where they are operating. Having heard the counsel for the applicants and the A. A. G. Mr. Bharat Vyas, it is difficult for this Court to entertain these applications in the writ petition which had already been disposed of finally by other dated 20. 10. 2004. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain these applications. If the applicants have any reason to feel aggrieved of the fact that they have been given discriminatory treatment and their mining area does not fall within the forest area, it is open for them to take recourse to any other remedy by challenging the report of the fact finding body, which has been accepted earlier. In so far as this Court is concerned, it cannot entertain the applications in the writ petition which has been disposed of as it hardly needs to be reiterated that this Court has become functus officio after the final disposal of the writ petition. Since the writ petition is not longer alive before this Court, the applications cannot be entertained and hence these applications are rejected as not maintainable with liberty to the applicants to take recourse of any other remedy that may be available to them under the law. END OF THE VOLUME - 2007 (1) RLW (HC & SC ) .;