Order B. C. Basak, C. J. and Chy. S. N. Mishra, J. - After hearing the learned Advocates for the different parties it appears that the question involved before us is simple. There are three parties before us. It seems that really the disputes are between two departments of the State Government. 2. The petitioner was given a licence for mining and stone equipments. Admittedly such licence had to be granted and renewal made by the Mining Department. The next admitted position is that it is the Mining Department which is entitled to take any action in respect of the licence. What has happend is that, the another department of the Government, namely, the Forest Department has taken certain steps for the seizure of certain articles of the petitioner solely on the ground that the renewal of the licence for t he year of the petitioner by the Mining Department was not lawfully done. 3. The Mining Department being the appropriate department for grant of such renewal, the question whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, and in view of the provisions of the relevant law, they should not have granted this renewal or not cannot be raised by some other Department. In our opinion, it is unfortunate that two departments are fighting between themselves and the petitioner is made to suffer for this. The petitioner's licence for renewal is still in existence and the period has not yet expired. During the pendency of the same, no such action can be- taken by any other department. 4. Accordingly, we allow this application. The seizure of the plants, machines and quaryring of stone equipments, crushed stones and boulders are unlawful and without jurisdiction. We direct the respondent concerned to restore the same to the petitioner. We make it clear that this will not prevent the Mining Department to take any appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. Let it further be recorded that except to the extent indicated above, we have not gone into the merits of the case. 6. Let it also be recorded that licence of petitioner no.6 has not been renewed, according to the learned Advocate appearing for the Mining Department. Accordingly this order in favour of the petitioners will not apply in case of petitioner no. 6, if the licence in favour of petitioner no. 6 has not been renewed. 7. 6. Let it also be recorded that licence of petitioner no.6 has not been renewed, according to the learned Advocate appearing for the Mining Department. Accordingly this order in favour of the petitioners will not apply in case of petitioner no. 6, if the licence in favour of petitioner no. 6 has not been renewed. 7. However, this will not prevent petitioner no. 6 for making an application for renewal which shall be dealt with by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 8. This application is disposed of accordingly.