THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP No. 28897 of 2011 Date of Judgment: 25.11.2011 Between: M/s. Madavi Manku Minerals …Petitioner and The Union of India and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP No. 28897 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, who was one of the contesting private parties in a revision pending before the Government of India under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein had both applied for mining lease/prospecting licence respectively. It appears that both the applications were considered by the State Government which passed an order dated 29.6.2009 rejecting the application of 4th respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner’s application is a prior application to the application of 4th respondent and that the area applied for by the 4th respondent overlaps the area applied for by the petitioner. The said order of the State Government was questioned by the 4th respondent before the Central Government under the revision referred to above. Under the impugned order, dated 30.8.2011, the Central Government had considered the submissions on behalf of 4th respondent herein as well as the State Government and, after noticing that the order of rejection of the application of 4th respondent herein was erroneous, it had set aside the order of the State Government and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the State Government. In the said order, however, there is an observation by the Central Government that as per the State Government’s version, it was considering the rejection of the mining application of the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent of the said observation. The fact that the mining lease/prospecting licence applications of the petitioner and the 4th respondent are pending with the State Government and are likely to be considered appropriately in accordance with law cannot be disputed. The observations in the impugned order, against which the petitioner is aggrieved, is required to be understood in the context of the submissions made by the State Government before the Central Government during the hearing of the said revision. The said observation was made in the order of the Central Government while recording what was stated by the State Government. Even otherwise, the State Government is bound to consider the application of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent or any other applicant in accordance with law and under the rules and it is not as if any of those applications are pre-judged. In that view of the matter, since the Central Government has remitted both the applications for consideration before the State Government, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending and I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the State Government i.e., 2nd respondent to consider and decide the respective applications of the petitioner as well as 4th respondent in accordance with law and uninﬂuenced by any observations of the Central Government under the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 25.11.2011 KR