THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1735 of 2010. Maya Dixit Wife of Satya Deo Dixit. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mrs. Bina Pande, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C.Bishit, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date November 22, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition no. 4 “Ga” contained in the notification dated 28th September 2010, issued by the respondent no. 5, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition no. 4”Ga” contained in the orders dated 17th September 2010, issued by the respondent no.1, as contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 6 to specifically indicate the date (seven working days) from which the applications in Form MM-1 in respect of the areas notified shall be accepted in the office of the respondent no. 3. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 6 to issue the treasury challan to the petitioner and accept and process the application of the 2 petitioner for which the petitioner has represented vide representation as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to ask for the consent of the land owner for accepting the application Form MM-1 or for determining the preferential right under Rule 9 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001. vi. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5 to determine the preferential right strictly in accordance with Rule 9 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001. vii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. viii. Also award the cost of this petition to the petitioner. This Court on 25-10-2010 granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner to the following effect:- “As an interim measure, it is directed that till further orders of this Court, application of the petitioner, dated 01-10-2010 (Annexure-4 to the petition) shall not be rejected by the authority concerned in the absence of consent of land owner.” The condition no. 4Ga of the Notification dated 28-9- 2010 issued by respondent no. 3 stipulated that the consent of the land owners is necessary. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and along with the same, Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit the respondents have annexed a Government Order dated 22- 10-2010, which has been issued during the pendency of the writ petition. It is clarified in this Government Order that condition no. 4- (Ga) mentioned in the Notification dated 28-9-2010 is not a mandatory clause under Rule 9 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) 3 Rules, 2001 and this stand has also been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Since the Government has already clarified the condition no. 4(Ga) of Notification dated 28-9-2010 by issuing a Government Order on 22-10-2010, therefore, the interim order dated 25-10-2010 passed by this Court is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of finally in terms of the interim order dated 25-10-2010. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP