JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions are almost identical involving similar facts and therefore, can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1198/1991. A mining lease for Iron Ore and Soapstone minerals near Village Kalaj Puri, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur was granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents, which was registered on 23.9.1978. The lease was granted for a period of twenty years. Thus, the lease will remain in force till 22.9.1998. Initially, the total areas of the mining lease was 339.128 Hectares. Subsequently, a part of the area of mining lease which was barren was surrendered by the petitioner to the State Government and the petitioner retained only 80 Hectares of area over which he had been doing mining activities and excavation. During mining operations, for mineral Soapstone, the petitioner found that along with Soapstone, the petitioner found that along with Soapstone, substantial quantity of Marble could be taken out from the pits made for the purpose of excavating Soapstone. Therefore, the petitioner applied on 25.7.90 to the Mining Engineer, Jaipur for grant of a separate mining lease for mineral marble for an area 100 x 100 Sq. Metres, for a period of ten years, under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1986'). The application was complete in all respects and was enclosed with the site plan. The petitioner submitted one more application for different area measuring 100 x 100 Sq. Metres for mineral Marble for a period of ten years. Mining Engineer rejected the said application vide letter dated 11.1.1991 on the ground that the area applied for fell within the reserve forest. Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed in this court on 15.2.1991. Notice were issued. 3. The respondents have filed a reply wherein all the facts mentioned in the writ petition have been almost admitted. But it has been denied that the application submitted by the petitioner was complete in all respects. It was not in accordance with the Rules. It was totally vague and discrepant and it was difficult to locate the area in accordance with the description report and the plan annexed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has applied for 100x100 Sq. Metres = 10,000 Sq. It was not in accordance with the Rules. It was totally vague and discrepant and it was difficult to locate the area in accordance with the description report and the plan annexed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has applied for 100x100 Sq. Metres = 10,000 Sq. Metres, whereas the existing pit measures approximately 30x20 = 600 Sq. Meters. The State Government is endeavoured with the task of protecting deforestation and in doing so, it could restrict mining operations in order to prevent further deforestation even for an area which has already been deforested in part. He has also submitted that the petitioner could have challenged the order of Mining Engineer by filing an appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 and therefore, a revision under section 47 to the State Government and a further revision to the Central Government, under section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and since the petitioner has got an alternative remedy, the writ petition should not be enter tamed. Arguments have been heard and record of the case has been perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram, AIR 1985 SC 814 wherein it has been held that where a mining lease was granted for mining of certain mineral prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the lessee had applied to the State Government after coming into force of the Act for permission to quarry any new mineral from any part of the forest area which was already utilised for non-forest purpose, by carrying out mining operations before the coming into force of the Act, the prior approval of the Central Government under section 2 for the purpose of granting such permission is not necessary. Before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area, Section 2 of the Act has to be complied with. It is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Govt. for the purpose of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the Act. Before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area, Section 2 of the Act has to be complied with. It is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Govt. for the purpose of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the Act. This authority has been relied on by this Court in Veerbala Purohit v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(2) RLR 592 (DB) wherein also it has been observed that the lessee having already broken the area applied for, no prior permission of the Central Government is necessary for granting mining lease for minor mineral and these two authorities were relied by this court again in Miss Madhu Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B.C.W.P.No.3021/1989 decided on 28.9.1989 wherein also the writ petition was allowed and the non-petitioners were directed not to insist upon the submission of a no objection certificate from the Forest Department.Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order dated 1.1.1991 is not a speaking order and did not contain reasons and therefore the order is bad and deserves to be struck down and has placed reliance on S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Supreme Court in Banshiram Modi, AIR 1985 SC 814 was faced with the situation where there was no dispute that the lessee had dug up and carried out mining operations and the forest land had been broken up or cleared and in these circumstances, it had passed the said order. Similarly, in the case of Veerbala Purohit (supra) also, it has been found that the petitioner had already broken up the area and no fresh breaking up or clearing of the area will be necessary and therefore, the writ petition had been allowed following the case of Banshiram Modi (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 359 where their lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the closure of Limestone quarries in Dehradun Distt. had again emphasised the importance of maintaining ecology as against industrial development and exploitation of limestone from Himalayan ranges. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 359 where their lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the closure of Limestone quarries in Dehradun Distt. had again emphasised the importance of maintaining ecology as against industrial development and exploitation of limestone from Himalayan ranges. He has also drawn my attention to Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1987 SC 1073 wherein their lordships distinguished the case of Banshiram Modi (supra) and decided the matter against the lessee, observing that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menace and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 359 which was again a case of Dehradun valley wherein again their lordships have emphasised about the maintenance of ecology. Before the Supreme Court, a question was posed as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped and since they were satisfied that if mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted in future it will not be congenial to ecology and environment; and the natural calm and peace which is a special feature of this area in its normal condition, shall not be restored. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. In view of the consistent observations of the Supreme Court and looking to the present need and in the interest of society, we have to protect environment and maintain ecological balance. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. In view of the consistent observations of the Supreme Court and looking to the present need and in the interest of society, we have to protect environment and maintain ecological balance. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra's case (supra) and Ambica Quarry Works (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the renewal of the mining leases and therefore, those observations will not strictly apply to the facts of the present case and the matter will be different as to whether the Government should renew the mining (lease) but in the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner had been carrying out the mining operations since 1978 and his lease is valid and operative upto 22.9.1998 and therefore, it is not a case of renewal of mining lease but only allowing the petitioner to extract further mineral which is available in the area already leased to him and where he had already dug up the pits. The present matter is directly governed by Banshi Ram Modi and Veerbala's cases (supra) as also Madhu Agrawal (supra). 8. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioners keeping in mind the observation of the Supreme Court and of this Court and grant them licence only for digging the area where petitioners have already deforested the area and have dug it. Government should specify the area on the site where deforestation has already been done. If the petitioners are allowed to dig out other mineral from that area neither the ecology will be imbalanced nor it will affect the environment. But the petitioners should not be allowed to dig up new pits and deforest other portion of their leased area. The non-petitioners should also keep a close vigil and should not allow the petitioners to carry on mining operations in virgin area. The petitioners are also directed not to deforest any further virgin land.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******