1 1. D.B.Civil Review Petition No.132/2008 Chander Singh & anr. V/s Madan Lal & ors. 2. D.B.Civil Review Petition No.133/2008 Smt.Sohani Bai V/s Madan Lal & ors. 3. D.B.Civil Review Petition No.134/2008 Shiv Gopal Singh V/s Madan Lal & ors. 4. D.B.Civil Review Petition No.137/2008 Madan Lal & anr. V/s State of Raj. & ors. 21.10.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.K.K.Sharma ) Mr.Arvind Bhardwaj )-for the petitioners. Since all these four review applications involve common questions of fact and the order under review is common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. It appears that PIL application filed by one Madanlal was dismissed, as not pressed vide order dated 16.7.2008 on submission made on behalf of the writ-petitioner that in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, the grievances no longer subsist. Some of the review-petitioners were respondents in the PIL application. At the initial stage when the PIL application was heard, a Bench of this Court noticing the fact that mining operation was allowed in bed of river, directed the State Counsel to take instructions in the matter and file affidavit. Pursuant thereto, affidavit was filed on behalf of the State stating therein that since the mining operation was confined beyond 45 meters of the river bed, the same could not have been allowed and thus, lease granted in favour of the beneficiaries was curtailed. 2 The writ application when it came for final disposal on 16.7.2008, counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner submitted that in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, he has no further grievances. The writ application accordingly was dismissed, as not pressed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review-petitioners have tried to impress upon the court that by virtue of the interim order granted earlier by this Court, their rights were interfered with. Since the writ application was dismissed, as not pressed on 16.7.2008, the interim order passed in that application merged with the final order and the interim order, if any, no longer continued to operate against the respondents. These review applications, in this view of the matter, do not merit any consideration. They are accordingly dismissed. However, the review-petitioners, if so advised, may take appropriate steps challenging the order of the State Government, if any passed against them, in accordance with law. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar