Honble SINGHVI, J.—Plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated, 23.4.1992 of the Civil Judge, Jhalawar passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10/90, whereby the learned Civil Judge has set aside the order of injunction passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar on 30.10.1986 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. (2). Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner was granted a mining lease for an area of 120x60 sqr. meters in Khasra Nos. 99,100 and 219 in Jhalarapatan Forest area Idwasa Hussain Tekri. The Divisional Forest Officer granted permission on 15.10.1979 for mining operations. According to the plaintiff- petitioner there is a way in Khasra No. 219 through which his tractor Truck, bullock-cart etc. have been passing through. In the year 1986 the authorities of the Forest Department constructed a closure and have thus prevented the plaintiff-petitioner from using way to the mining area. This has been done notwithstanding the fact that the lease has been renewed by the Mines Department. (3). Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar for permanent injunction and at the same time, he filed an application for temporary injunction with a prayer that during the pendency of the suit the disputed way should be made open for use of the plaintiff-petitioner so that he may effectively carry out his mining operations. Defendant-non-petitioners contested the application for temporary injunction and asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to carry on the mining operations because No Objection Certificate has not been given by the Forest Department and issue of such a No Objection Certificate is a condition precedent for carrying out any mining operation in, view of the provisions contained in the Forest(Conservation)Act, 1980 and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. (4). After hearing the parties learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate held that mine was operational; since 1979 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules have come into force in 1986. These rules are not applicable to the case of the plaintiff. Learned Munsiff further held that irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner if he is not allowed to use the way in dispute. Against the order of injunction the State Government filed and appeal and the same was transferred to the Civil Judge, Jhalawar for disposal. These rules are not applicable to the case of the plaintiff. Learned Munsiff further held that irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner if he is not allowed to use the way in dispute. Against the order of injunction the State Government filed and appeal and the same was transferred to the Civil Judge, Jhalawar for disposal. Learned Civil Judge expressed the view that in terms of Rule 4 (6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department was necessary before the plaintiff petitioner could carry out mining operations and since no such No Objection Certificate had been given by the Forest Department, the petitioner was not entitled to carry on the mining operations. He further held that the Forest Department has carried out afforestation in about 100 Hectares of land and now the area in question was a reserve forest. Therefore without proper sanction from the Forest Department it was not permissible for the plaintiff-petitioner to under take any mining operation. On the basis of these findings the learned Civil judge has set aside the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff and has dismissed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff petitioner. (5). The fore-most argument advanced by Shri Mehrish learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the provisions for the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are not applicable to the existing mining lease or the cases of renewal of existing lease. Shri Mehrish argued that once mining operation has already been carried out in the forest area with the permission of the Forest Department, the forest must be deemed to have been broken and the restrictions contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act are not applicable in such matters. Shri Mehrish argued that when the Mines Department has already given renewal of lease in favour of the plaintiff petitioner there is no reason or justification for depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the lease. He further submitted that the petitioner has made huge expenditure on the basis of the renewals granted by the Mines Department and there is no reason for withholding of permission by the Forest Department. Shri Mehrish argued that the Government is now estopped fro raising objection regarding the absence of No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. He further submitted that the petitioner has made huge expenditure on the basis of the renewals granted by the Mines Department and there is no reason for withholding of permission by the Forest Department. Shri Mehrish argued that the Government is now estopped fro raising objection regarding the absence of No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modi (1) and M.P. Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2). Shri Kamlakar Sharma and Shri Pankaj Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the provisions of 1980 Act are applicable even to the cases of renewal of mining lease and unless approval is granted by the Central Government an existing lease holder cannot carry the mining operations. They submitted that the provisions of 1980 Act have an over-riding effect on all other provisions of law and therefore, grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner by the Mining Department does not entitle the petitioner to carry on the mining operations. Shri Sharma submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Banshi Ram Modis case was given in a peculiar fact situation and in the subsequent decisions the Supreme Court has itself distinguished Banshi Ram Modis case. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works etc. Vs. State of Gujarat (3), Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. (4), as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarun Bharat Sangh Alwar Vs. Union of India (5). Both the learned counsel argued that the principle of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is not applicable to the case of the plaintiff-petitioner because there can be no estoppel against the statute and no representation could possibly be held out by the Mining Department to the petitioner on the question of applicability of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation Act, 1980. Shri Sharma argued that the Mining Department has never given any assurance or promise to the petitioner that he would be entitled to carry on the mining operation even without requisite No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. (6). The Forest (Conservation ) Act, 1980 has been enacted in order to provide for the conservation of forest and other matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. (6). The Forest (Conservation ) Act, 1980 has been enacted in order to provide for the conservation of forest and other matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. This Act was preceded by the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. Statement of Objects and Reasons set out in the Bill which was introduced in the Parliament for replacing the ordinance was in the following terms: — 1. "Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environment deterioration. Deforestation has been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caused widespread concern. 2. With a view to checking further deforestation, the President promulgated on the 25.10.1980, the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the Prior approval of the Central Government necessary for dereservation of reserved forests and for use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided for the Constitution of an Advisory Committee advice the Central Government with regard to grant of such approval. Section 2 of this Act is as under: — "Restriction on the De-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing— (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved: ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purposes. iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other Organisation not owned managed or controlled by Govern-ment. iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have been grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation." (7). Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Rule-4(6) of these rules reads as under: — "No mining lease shall be granted or renewed in the forest area without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder." (8). Rule 19 of 1986 Rules provides for execution of the lease deed in the cases of grant of lease or renewal thereof. Schedule appended to the Rules of 1986 prescribe various forms. Form No. 5 is a model form of mining lease. This form contains among other things various conditions which are required to be fulfilled by a lessee. Condition No. 6 (12) enumerated in the model form of mining lease r0ads as under: — "Not to enter upon or commence operations in Forest land etc.— "The Lessee/Lessees shall not enter upon or commence any mining operations in any State Forest or land under special protection comprised in the leased area except after previously obtaining permission in writing of the competent officer." (9). A perusal of the above quoted provisions clearly shows that the State Government has no power to de-reserve any reserve forest or allow use of forest land for any non-forest purpose. A further restriction has been placed on the power of the State Government to grant any lease of any forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or Controlled by the Government. Explanation added to Section-2 of 1980 Act shows that the expression "non-forest purpose" has been given a wide meaning and it comprehends within its ambit all purposes other than re-afforestation. (10). Grant of a lease or renewal thereof are governed by the provisions of the Minor-Mineral Concession Rules framed by the State Government. Renewal of a lease is not automatic. A separate application is required to be made for renewal of the mining lease and for grant of renewal more or less the same procedure is to be followed which is required to be followed in fresh grant of lease. In Stale of Tamil Nadu V. M/s Hind Stone (6), their Lord ships of the Supreme Court have held that renewal of a lease stands on the same footing as grant of a lease. In Stale of Tamil Nadu V. M/s Hind Stone (6), their Lord ships of the Supreme Court have held that renewal of a lease stands on the same footing as grant of a lease. Similar view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Raghav Das v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (7) and Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (8). (11). Provisions contained in Section-2 of 1980 Act became subject matter of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modi (supra). In that case a lease of 20 years had been granted by the State Government on 25th April 1966 in accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The lease was to expire on 24th April 1986. During the course of mining operations respondent No. 1 discovered two minerals, namely, felspar and quartz which are associated minerals of mica for which lease had been granted to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 informed the State Government about the discovery of these two minerals and he applied for inclusion of these minerals in the lease executed on 25th April 1966. The State Government granted his application by a deed of incorporation dated 6.4.1983. No previous approval of the Central Government was obtained for that purpose. After coming into force of 1980 Act Central Government had written to the State Government about the prohibitions contained in the said Act. The Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma forest division wrote to respondent No. 1 on 8.8.1983 that the petitioner cannot be allowed mining of felspar and quartz because prior approval of the Central Government had not been obtained. Respondent No. filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court held upheld the judgment of the High Court. Their lordships of the Supreme Court held that the provisions of 1980 Act had no application. On appeal the Supreme Court held that where permission had been accorded for carrying out the mining operations prior to the commencement of the Act and the forest had already been broken up or cleared, section-2 of 1980 Act cannot be applied. Their Lordships observed that felspar and quartz had been discovered while digging for the purpose of winning mica and it would be unreasonable to deny benefit of these two minerals to the lessee while the mining operations for mica would still go on. Their Lordships observed that felspar and quartz had been discovered while digging for the purpose of winning mica and it would be unreasonable to deny benefit of these two minerals to the lessee while the mining operations for mica would still go on. Even while upholding the judgment of the High Court their Lordships observed: — "The Act is intended to serve a laudable purpose and it has got to be enforced strictly for the benefit of the general public. The Act applies not merely to the cases of mining leases granted in respect of areas within the reserve forests but to all cases where the forest land is sought to be used for non-forest purpose." (12). This decision became subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works. V. State of Gujarat (supra). That was a case in which lease was granted on 8.11.1971 for a period of ten years for minor mineral black trap. When the terms of lease was going to expire appellant made an application for renewal of the lease in accordance with the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966. This application was rejected on the ground that the land fell in the reserve forest area. The Forest Department had refused to give No Objection Certificate. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court and in appeal, their lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took notice of the submission made on behalf of the appellant that they had invested large sums of money in mining operations and they had fulfilled all the terms of the grant and there was no reason for refusing renewal of the lease, that the State Government was under an obligation to grant renewal as a matter of course. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Hari Shankar Rajendrapal (9) as well as State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi (supra). Their Lordships held that there were good grounds for not granting renewal of the lease. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Hari Shankar Rajendrapal (9) as well as State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi (supra). Their Lordships held that there were good grounds for not granting renewal of the lease. In regard to Banshi Rams case the Supreme Court observed: — "There was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was given right to collect those. The new lease only permitted utilization or collection of the said other minerals." Supreme Court further observed: — "In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help re-claiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants demands in these cases because the facts are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government should seek approval of the Central Government, the State Government cannot apparently seek such approval, in a matter in respect of, in our opinion, which it has come to the conclusion that no renewal should be granted." In that view of the matter and the scheme of the Act, in our opinion, the respondents were right and the appellants were wrong. All interpertation must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act. This interpertation in our opinion, will subserve the perdominant purpose of the Act." (13). State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modis case was again considered by the Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (supra). All interpertation must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act. This interpertation in our opinion, will subserve the perdominant purpose of the Act." (13). State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modis case was again considered by the Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (supra). After making reference to the various constitutional provisions and making reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendrapal and Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (Supra) the Supreme Court observed : — "In Banshi Ram Modis case what was being considered was extension of lease for another mineral which was found while exploitation under the existing mining lease was undertaken. We agree with the view expressed by brother Mukherji that the Conservation Act of 1980 applies to renewals as well as even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exercise of lessees option, the requirements of 1980 Act had to be satisfied before such renewal could be granted." (14). Their Lordships also reiterated the view that 1980 Act applies in the case of mines in the reserve forest as well as in other forest areas and that if mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted in future it would be not congenial to ecology and environment. (15). In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India and others (supra), the Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of 1980 Act as well as various other enactments and held that in the absence of prior approval of the Central Government for granting/renewing mining lease after 1980 no mining operation could be allowed to be undertaken. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed closure of various mines for which lease had been granted. The Supreme Court also held that under section-2 of 1980 Act and Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 no mining lease could have been granted or renewed within the forest without clearance from the Central Government. (16). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed closure of various mines for which lease had been granted. The Supreme Court also held that under section-2 of 1980 Act and Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 no mining lease could have been granted or renewed within the forest without clearance from the Central Government. (16). The proposition which emerges from the above referred decisions is that the provisions regarding prior approval of the Central Government as contained in Section-2 of 1980 Act and Rule 4 (6) of 1986 Rules are applicable to the cases of grant of fresh mining leases or renewal of an existing mining lease and in view of the non-obstant clause contained in section-2 of 1980 Act, grant of mining lease or renewal thereof is to be treated as void if such prior approval of the Central Government has not been obtained. Even if a lease is granted by the Mines Department or renewal is ordered by any authority under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 or any other law mining operation cannot be. undertaken by the lessee where prior permission of the Central Govern-ment has not been obtained. Logical corollary of this proposition is that no court can grant a decree or order permitting mining operation on the basis of a lease granted in favour of an individual where provisions of section-2 of 1980 Act or Rule 4 (6) of 1986 Rules have not been complied with. (17). In the present case, the learned Munsiff has misinterpreted and has mis-understood the judgment of Banshi Ram Modis case while passing the order of injunction. Learned Civil Judge has rightly held that mere renewal of lease in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner does not confer any right in his favour to carry on mining operation in the absence of prior approval of the Central Government. When it is clear that the petitioner has no right to undertake the mining operations in the forest area on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section-2 of 1980 Act, the authorities of the Forest Department cannot be held to have acted without the authority of law in putting up the enclosure for protection of the forest area. It is thus, evident that the plaintiff-petitioner did not have any prima-facie case on the basis of which the order of injunction could be passed in his favour. (18). It is thus, evident that the plaintiff-petitioner did not have any prima-facie case on the basis of which the order of injunction could be passed in his favour. (18). Argument of Shri Mehrish, learned counsel for. the petitioner, that the non-petitioners area bound by the principle of promissory estoppel is of no help to the case of the petitioner. In the present case, Section-2 of 1980 Act read with Rule 4 (6) of 1986 Rules clearly puts a restriction on the use of forest area for non-forest purpose and no lease for mining" operation could have been granted in a forest area without prior approval of the Central Government. No amount of promise or assurance by the authorities of the mining Department could entitle the petitioner to claim that the authorities of the Forest Department or the Central Government are estopped from questioning the renewal of lease granted to the petitioner nor it is possible to- accept the submission of Shri Mehrish that the authorities of the Forest Department are estopped from taking steps for protection of the forest area. No case has been set up by the petitioner on the basis of which he could raise the plea of estoppel against the authorities of the Forest Department. Thus, there is no merit in the submission of Shri Mehrish that the respondents are bound by the principle of promissory estoppel and they are not entitled to prevent the petitioner from undertaking the mining operations. , (19). Another argument of Shri Mehrish that the provisions of 1980 Act are not attracted because the lease had been granted to the plaintiff-petitioner in the year 1979 also does not merit acceptance. Once it is held that the provisions of Section-2 of 1980 Act are attracted in the cases of renewal of lease, no question of retrospectively arises. (20). I am further of the view that the learned trial court has over looked a vital factor while passing the order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned trial court has totally ignored the object with which the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been enacted by the Parliament. The statement of Objects and Reasons enumerated herein above shows that the Act of 1980 is intended to protect the vital public interest, namely, environment and ecology. Learned trial court has totally ignored the object with which the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been enacted by the Parliament. The statement of Objects and Reasons enumerated herein above shows that the Act of 1980 is intended to protect the vital public interest, namely, environment and ecology. Destruction of ecology and environment will have far reaching impact not only on present generation but on generation to come. Entire society will suffer adversely on account of deforestation and other connected activities. Millions of innocent people will suffer adversely if forests are allowed to be destroyed in the name of material progress and development. Therefore, the Courts have to be extra cautious and careful while passing injunction in such matters; because, grant of injunction in favour of an individual results in immense prejudice to the public interest. (21). On 21.7.1993 when arguments in the case were heard and order was reserved a direction was given to Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the Mines Department, to get a report about the quantity of the material which has already been excavated. Shri Sharma has placed report of the Assistant Mining Engineer showing 236.66 Cubic ft. of material which is equivalent to 16.22 tons is lying excavated. Since this material has already been excavated it would be in the fitness of things to allow the plaintiff-petitioner to take that material. The Assistant Mining Engineer concerned should make arrangements for allowing the petitioner to remove that material which he has excavated till 23.7.1993. He should inform the concerned Forest Authorities and provide facility in consultation with the authorities of the Forest Department for transportation of this material. The transportation should be so arranged that minimum destruction is caused to the forest area. (22). For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is held to be without merit and it is hereby dismissed subject to the directions regarding permission to the petitioner to take the material excavated upto 23.7.1993. Parties are left to bear their own costs.