1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2251/2008 [AMARCHAND VS.THE STATE OF RAJ..] Date of Judgment : 08.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.Bharat Devasi for the petitioner. ***** This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2006. It is prayed that the official respondents be restrained to grant approval of the mining lease in favour of the respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the rejection of the application for allotment of mine so submitted by the petitioner, an appeal was preferred by him in the Year 2005 which has now been decided by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.02.2008 wherein the matter has been remanded back to the Competent Authority for hearing the petition afresh on merits. Referring to Annex.6 it is contended that even in regard to Surender Singh, the matter was remanded back to the Competent Authority for 2 re-hearing of the matter afresh and thereafter a decision was taken for allotment of mine to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Surender Singh was granted mine but approval as not been given by the authority as yet therefore, he has preferred this writ petition during the pendency of his matter pursuant to the remand order. The respondents may not give approval of the mining lease to the respondent No. 5. In view of the discussion made above, it comes out that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner precisely to restrain the respondent to grant approval of mining to respondent No.5 though such prayer can be made by the petitioner before the Competent Authority by moving an appropriate application for interim order or if he is aggrieved by grant of mining lease, right of appeal/revision exist for the petitioner. However, so far as the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is concerned, it cannot be exercised for grant of interim order during the pendency of hearing the application of the petitioner pursuant to the remand order dated 19.02.2008 {Annex.5}. 3 In view of the above, while the present writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Competent Authority for seeking appropriate interim order or by maintaining an appeal or revision against the approval of the mining in favour of the respondent No. 5. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta