JUDGMENT By order Annexure-G, dated 30.5.1978 and Annexure-K, dated 25.8.1981 made by the authorities of the State of M.P., the petitioner was granted a mining lease for extraction of dolomite and soapstone from an area 2.832 hectares in village Gawri, District Jabalpur. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders Annexure-M dated 1st of March 1983 passed by Additional Collector, Jabalpur and Annexure-S dated 23.3.1984 issued by Special Area Development Authority, Bhedaghat whereby the petitioner has been restrained from working the area granted to him under the mining lease. So far as the communication Annexure-N issued by Additional Collector, Jabalpur is concerned the petitioner's working was suspended pending demarcation of the leased area. It is now pointed out that the leased area has been duly demarcated as is apparent from communication Annexure-P dated 13.5.1983 of the Mining Officer. The objection to the working for non-demarcation of the leased area as communicated vide Annexure-M, therefore, does not survive. The learned Government Advocate submits that no proper demarcation in presence of the concerned authorities was made. If that be so, nothing prevents the authorities from getting the area re-demarcated. For that purpose it is open to the authorities to take necessary steps after issue of due notice to the petitioner. The second communication impugned is Annexure-S dated 23.3.1984 issued by the Executive Officer, Special Area Development Authority, Bhedaghat. In the impugned communication it has been stated that for proper conservation and development of the special area the authority has resolved not to grant permission to anyone to carryon mining operations in the area of the Special Area Development Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once a mining lease is granted Special Area Development Authority constituted under the M.P. Gram Tatha Nagar Nives Adhiniyam, 1973 derives no power and jurisdiction to stop working of the mine under existing lease. The Special Area Development Authority has not filed any return in reply to the petition. Return has been filed only on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4. Reference is made to sections 30 and 32 of the Act of 1973. I have looked into those provisions. Section 30 confers power on the Director to grant or refuse permission for development of any area notified as Special Area for the development. Section 32 confers revisional power on the State Government. Reference is made to sections 30 and 32 of the Act of 1973. I have looked into those provisions. Section 30 confers power on the Director to grant or refuse permission for development of any area notified as Special Area for the development. Section 32 confers revisional power on the State Government. Norte of the two provisions are relevant and can be resorted to for supporting the action of SADA. The mining lease so long as it exists and is not revoked by the granting authority, Special Area Development Authority has no jurisdiction and power to stop the mining operation. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar informed that by virtue of the stay order passed by this Court on 8.2.1984 the petitioner is carrying on the mining operation and has also obtained renewal of the mining lease. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annexure-S dated 23.3.1984 of Special Area Development Authority, Bhedaghat is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the leased area be re-demarcated by the authorities to restrict mining operation within the leased area. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner.