M.B Sharma, J. - (1.) THERE appears to be some inter se dispute between the Mining Department and the Forest Department. That dispute appears to have been raised after grant of the mining lease, because the mining lease to the petitioner was granted only after no objection from the Forest Department. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease of mineral limestone situated near village Raisala, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh for an area measuring 53 2 Hectares on May 16, 1977. There was deemed rejection of application of petitioner for the grant of mining lease, the same having not been disposed of till the statutory period of nine mouths and, therefore, the petitioner filed revision petition before the State Government, which was allowed with a direction to dispose of the application within 100 days. Again, within the aforesaid period of 100 days the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease was not decided and again there was a deemed rejection. Again there was a revision to the State Government by the petitioner, but he was not successful and ultimately the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 read with Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957. The Central Government allowed the revision petition and directed the State Government to dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease on merits. The application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease was dealt with and a reference was made to the Forest Department and the Forest Department under Annexure -1 dated June 29, 1985 informed the Mining Engineer, Jaipur that only 3 Bighas and 15 Biswas of Khasra No. 74 is Forest Area and therefore, if the mining lease is given to the petitioner leaving the aforesaid Forest Area, the Forest Department will have no objection. It appear that thereafter mining lease was granted to the petitioner and area of the petitioner was demarcated. A look at Annexure -3 will show that the area for which mining lease was granted to the petitioner was GSKYXO.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that despite the fact that mining lease has been granted and despite the fact that no part of area for which mining lease was granted fall in the area of reserve forest, the non -petitioner No. 2 through his servants/agents was interfering in the working of the mine and started digging the land for the purpose of construction of the wall. We may state that notice was given to the non -petitioners as to why writ petition be not admitted and disposed of, but no reply has been filed by the non -petitioners. On August 8, 1988 a Division Bench of this court granted one month's time on payment of Rs. 200/ - as cost to non -petitioners to file reply, but no reply was filed. When the case came up before this Court on September 13, 1988, we still granted time, but the reply has not been filed, though costs were awarded. It has been given out by Mr. Purohit that sanction is under process. He also gives out that Officer Incharge has not yet contracted him. It is for the Chief Secretary and other Officers to take suitable action against the Officer incharge. It is the duty of the Officer -in -charge, after one is appointed to treat the case as if it is his personal case and take all steps to contact Law Officer, so that the State's interest is safe guarded, but it is generally seen that Officer does not care and by and large does not contact Law Officer concerned. The situation needs improvement and unless some drastic disciplinary action is taken against defaulting officer -in -charge of the case, the State's interest will go on suffering as usual. Be that as it may, we gave sufficient time to the non -petitioner to file reply and as stated earlier after giving no objection the Forest Department has no right to interfere in the working of the mine by the petitioner. Consequently, we are satisfied that the petitioner after grant of mining lease is working in the area for which the mining lease has been granted to him, we hereby allow the writ petition and direct the respondent No. 2 his subordinates, his agents, his servants not to interfere in any manner what so ever in the working of the mine by the petitioner. It shall, how ever, be open for the revenue authorities to demarcate the area of mining lease if there is still some dispute and the petitioner shall have right to work the mine within that area. Costs made easy.;