Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, Dharampal Sinha, JJ. 1. The three petitioners (Petitioner No.1 is the Secretary of the Bihar Legal Aid Council, High court campus, Patna and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are resident of village khaprajola) pray to command Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to terminate the mining lease granted in favour of the respondent No.5 covering part of the land bearing plot No.162, situated in Mauza Khaprajola, P. S. Pakur (M) in the District of Sahebganj and restrain Respondent No.5 from carrying its business. 2. The petitioners assert that this writ application is being filed by way of public interest litigation on the grounds, inter alia, that the mining done by the respondent No.5 is causing hazard to the life of persons residing nearby the site of its surface operation and ecological imbalance, which should be prevented ; that the lease was illegally granted by the state of Bihar to Respondent No.5 ; and that the authorities are sitting tight over the complnint made through Annexure-3. 3. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No.5 asserts denying the allegatigns inter alia, that this writ application has been filed in the garb of a public interest litigation : that the petitioner No.2 was night guard of the firm of respondent No.5 till very recently, who after having lost his employment has filed this writ application ; that the petitioner No, 3 was also an employee of respondent No.5, who is carrying business since 1993, but now himself a quarry owner and carries on similar business under the name and slyle of Bachalal Singh and Brothers after obtaining a mining lease and certificate, as contained in Annexures-C and C/1, and has filed this writ application due to business rivarly ; that Annexure-3 was filed by one Sukurmani before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, who and petitioner No.2 reside in the same house No.43, which is evident from Annexure-D ; that the whole area in surrounded by several firms, which are carrying operations whereas Respondeni No.5 carries its operation over on about 5 bighas of lands after grant of necessary certificates by the Circle Officer, Pakur, Sahibeanj and clearance by the Bihar state Pollution Control Board vide Annexure-I, as well as other mining authorities but it alone has been made party ; that the lease was correctly granted ; and that accordingly this writ application which has been filed mala fide, is fit to be dismissed. In the counter-affidavit reference has been made in regard to some other writ applications as also other cases, but it is not necessary to refer them. 4. Counter-affidavit has also been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 denying the allegations made by the petitioners. 5. No reply has been filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the facts and circumstances, as mentioned in this writ application it is a fit case to command respondent No 5 to stop its operation. 7. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Special P. P. for the Respondents 1 to 4 as well as Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5, submit that operations are being conducted after taking necessary permission from the authorities including pollution authorities and that the claim of the petitioners is incorrect besides the instant writ application is nothing but by way of busiaess rivarly as stated in the counter-affidavit of Respondent No 5 to which no reply has been given. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the submissions made by the respondents are correct and that it is not a fit case, in which we should exercise our discretion specially when no illegality was pointed out by the petitioners in the lease and the certificates granted in favour of the respondent No 5. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Writ application dismissed.