JUDGMENT 1. - I am happy that the learned counsel for the parties have fairly realised that this litigation is avoidable. The reason is not far to seek. The petitioner undoubtedly has got lease in his favour granted by the Mining Department. 2. The lessons given by both the courts below for rejecting the suit are perfunctory and non-speaking and are no reasons in the eye of law as the matter of urgency was not considered objectively. The impugned order is glaring example of arbitrariness. Consequently, the order cannot be allowed to stand. 3. The resultant situation is either to allow the litigants to multiply the litigation or to conclude it by a fair and reasonable order. It is realised by all the learned counsels that once a citizen has got a lease in his favour given by the competent authority, it can only be cancelled by revocation or by using revisional or appellate powers or other powers under the Statute. Mr. Purohit's contention that mining department is not competent to grant lease after coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 without the permission of the Central Government may be correct, but I am not expressing any opinion on the point. It is the fight in two departments of the State and a citizen cannot be allowed to suffer and drawn from pole to piller without due course of law. In these circumstances, all the learned counsel agree that an appropriate direction may be given by this Court in the main suit itself in order to cut-short the litigation. It is hereby directed that the petitioner will be permitted to excavate as per lease for the period allowed either originally or by -renewing until after adopting proper procedure of law either by the Forest Department or the Mining Department or any other department to revoke or cancel it by passing written order which must be speaking order after giving proper opportunity of showing cause to cancel the lease. 4. Consequently, both the revision petitions are accepted and the directions mentioned above are given and the suit of plaintiff is decided in the above terms. The parties will bear their own costs.Revision dismissed. *******