- (1.) This petition is filed by Banswara Marble Mines Owners Association in representative capacity along with one mine owner seeking following reliefs :- (i) quashing stipulations Nos. 2 and 3 of Annex. 4 so far as it directs the transfer of the cost of compensatory afforestation and the cost of penal afforestation, (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to now unconditionally grant this approval for diversion of the land in question for mining purposes, more particularly in view of Annexure-1 and the members of the petitioner having already deposited the amounts demanded vide Annexure-1, (iii) quashing stipulation No. 4 of Annex. 5. (iv) quashing Annex. 6 whole hog, (v) holding that by seeking to challenge the demand of amounts vide Annexures-4, 5 and 6 under the colour of compensatory afforestation or penal afforestation, the petitioners are not claiming any relaxation as assumed in Annexure-8 and thus quashing Annexure-8, (vi) awarding costs of the writ petition, (vii) granting any such other relief as the petitioner may be found entitled to.
(2.) On 8th July, 1998 this Court ordered issue of notice to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and disposed of at admission stage making the rule returnable in a week as the matter was canvassed to be very urgent on behalf of the petitioners.
(3.) Reply has now been filed on behalf of the State Government and the matter is passed for decision at the admission stage by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Vineet Mathur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri R. P. Dave, Advocate for the State brought to my notice an order made by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 and other connected petitions and prayed that in view of the orders made by the Supreme Court which is reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 : (AIR 1997 SC 1233) this Court cannot hear the writ petition or decide the same as the Supreme Court of India has put a complete embargo on such hearing and decision by this Court. Replying to the contention and preliminary objection Shri N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision is not applicable in the present case and is liable to be distinguished. I find it necessary in the circumstances to decide the preliminary objection regarding hearing first.;