1 16 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3944/2005 Smt. Leela Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.S.Singhvi) Mr.Manish Patel ) for the petitioner Mr.R.L.Jangid,A.A.G.) Mr.Arvind Shrimali for Mr.D.D.Thanvi,for the respondent No.6 .... Though placed for orders along with cognate matters but, for the peculiar facts and circumstances, it appears appropriate to dispose of this writ petition as infructuous, of course, with necessary orders and directions. It is noticed that this writ petition was filed essentially with reference to the communication dated 12.04.2005 (Annex.3) whereby it was stated by the Asst. Mining Engineer, Jalore that the appeal taken by the petitioner had been decided by the Additional Director, Mines and the matter was remanded but the application (for grant of mining lease) was not maintainable for having not been moved under the Granite Policy of the year 1995 and the Government Order dated 20.12.1996 or under the Granite Policy of the year 2002, and having not been received under any legal process, no further proceedings were requisite; and, therefore, the rejection order dated 02.08.2003 would remain in force. 2 It is, however, stated by the respondents that the said communication dated 12.04.2005 came to be issued inadvertently and the same has since been withdrawn under the order dated 15.09.2006 (Annex.R/3). It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending and, therefore, this petition remains bereft of cause of action. It appears from the submissions so made on behalf of the respondents that the impugned communication dated 12.04.2005 that led to this writ petition was wrongly and inadvertently issued and else, the appeal filed by the petitioner, bearing No.73/2003 before the Additional Director, Mines, has remained pending; and it is stated that the said appeal has not been decided yet. In the circumstances of the case and for the facts as stated, that the impugned communication dated 12.04.2005 has already been withdrawn, this writ petition is practically rendered infructuous. However, in view of the developments that have taken place, it appears appropriate that the private respondent No.6 in this writ petition ought to be joined as a party to the said appeal and he may also be extended an opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority who may decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. So far interim relief is concerned, it is contended on 3 behalf of the petitioner that per the force of the order dated 15.07.2004 as passed by this Court in CWP No.5913/2003, the respondents were restrained from making fresh allotments; and it is also noticed that while admitting this writ petition, this Court directed that mining lease shall not be granted in favour of the respondent No.6 and further restrained the said respondent from undertaking mining operations. In view of the orders so passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5913/2003 and so also in this writ petition, it is considered expedient in the interest of justice and hence ordered that the restraint order passed in this writ petition shall continue to remain in operation until decision of the appeal by the said Appellate Authority. The parties i.e., the petitioner Smt. Leela Devi, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jalore, and the respondent No.6, Shri Mahaveer Singh Rathore, being represented by their respective counsel before this Court, shall stand at notice to appear before the said Appellate Authority on 27.01.2009. Subject to the observations and requirements aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni