IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 20 OF 2008 M/S. CHOWGULE AND COMPANY LTD., ... Appellant Versus SHRI. ULHAS GUNO GAONKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 7th August, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. There is no dispute that survey No.7 is within the mining lease obtained by the Appellant and that being so the Appellant would have exclusive right to carry out mining activity. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellant states that no mining activity in survey No. 7 forming part of the said mining lease would be carried out by the Appellant unless the provision of the Mining and Minerals(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder are complied with. The statement is accepted. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submits that the Respondents were not doing any mining activity in the said survey number. However, learned Senior Counsel submits that mining activity was carried out and even ore extracted was seized from the Respondents. Considering that the Appellant has exclusive rights to do mining within the leased area no other person can carry out the same. The learned trial Court, therefore, was not right in refusing injunction. Hence, the appeal deserves to succeed. The impugned Order is hereby set aside and the Respondents are hereby restrained from carrying out any mining activity within the said mining lease until the disposal of the suit. Appeal dispose of on above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.