CWP 1011/2005 along with CWP Nos. 1014 & 1015 of 2005 16.5.2008 Present: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government has come forward by way of interim application, namely, CMP No. 1487/2007, seeking modification of the order dated 19.11.2005, in view of the facts and circumstances, that the Joint Inspection Committee could not carry the inspection of the area where the mining lease was being sought by the petitioners in the garb of ban having been imposed by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has expressed his apprehension that his fresh application for getting the mining lease may not get priority, as in comparison to the persons seeking mining permission in the relevant areas in reference to their applications preferred earlier. However, his apprehension seems to be without any basis according to the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, wants to withdraw the petition with liberty that when he prefers his application in future, the same should not be thrown away or be discarded only on the ground that he has filed the application at this stage and such application should not be given less priority in comparison to the applications of other applicants preferred earlier. We allow the petitioners to withdraw the petition with an indication that after filing the application for mining lease by the petitioners, the same shall have to be considered in consonance to the prevailing mining laws and provisions of the State Government and the same shall not be ignored on the ground of priority and the State Government, however, is at liberty to consider the application of the petitioners keeping in view the ban and any recent restrictions as per existing mining laws. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending applications. However, any observation shall not effect the merits of the case. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. May 16, 2008 (rana)