JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the case is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. Way back on 30th July, 1991, the petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease but the application was dismissed on 27th April, 1994. The matter was taken to the Addl. Director, Mines and Geology and vide communication dated 21st October, 1991, the petitioner was informed that the area was overlapping. The appeal was allowed on merits vide order dated 28th Jan., 1994 and the order of rejection of the lease was set aside. A further direction was handed down that the application be decided on merits. It was thereafter the matter was taken up for the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. 3. It has been said in the petition that there could be no objection from the Forest Department vide communication dated 30th March, 1993 and it has been clarified that forest area was at a distance of 8 kms. from the site and thus did not fall within the forest area. The mining lease was ultimately sanctioned on 23rd June, 1994. 4. A revision petition appears to have been moved suo motu and mining operations were ordered to be stopped and revision petition was ultimately allowed on 7th November, 1994. This order is Annex. 7 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5. All what has been said in the impugned order is that the revisional authority acted in haste although the area was free from forest but the Mining Engineer sought No Objection Certificate on 22nd June, 1994 and without waiting for the reply, the lease was granted on the very next date though a No Objection Certificate admittedly has now been received on 25th June, 1994. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Gupta submits that the Department had already been apprised of the fact that the forest area was 8 kms. away and there was in fact no need to send for the No Objection Certificate but in any case the same was made available on record on 25th June, 1994. It can at worst be said to be an irregularity. 7. Mr. away and there was in fact no need to send for the No Objection Certificate but in any case the same was made available on record on 25th June, 1994. It can at worst be said to be an irregularity. 7. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents submits that without waiting for the No Objection Certificate, the lease could not have been granted and therefore the action of the allotting authority, was illegal. 8. Mr. Jangid has further stressed rule 4(6) of the 1986 Rules to support his contention. 9. Mr. Jangid further submits that since the area is overlapping the lease could not be granted unless that hurdle was cleared. 10. In the reply filed by the forest department, it is conceded that the area does not fall in the forest range. 11. Mr. Gupta contends the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not survive since on his application this controversy stood resolved and that was done before passing the order Annex. 3. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after gong through the pleading and other relevant materials placed on record, I find the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. 13. Admittedly, the lease was granted to the petitioner and he went ahead with the lot of investments to undertake mining operations. It was on suo mote revision, the revisional authority cancelled the lease and that was on the ground that without waiting for the No Objection Certificate the mining engineer had illegally granted the lease in question. 14. In my opinion, the said No Objection Certificate was only a formality since sufficient material was already with the mining engineer to the effect that the site in question was about 8 kms. away from the forest range yet a request was sent for the grant of the No Objection Certificate and the said sanction has duly been received on 25th June, 1994 whereas the lease stood granted on 23rd June, 1993. It can at best be said to be an irregularity and the mining engineer should have been careful to see and wait for the No Objection Certificate. Be that as it may. 15. Once it has come on record that area is not covered by the forest range and more so the forest department has granted clearance, the petitioner's lease could not have been ordered to be cancelled. Be that as it may. 15. Once it has come on record that area is not covered by the forest range and more so the forest department has granted clearance, the petitioner's lease could not have been ordered to be cancelled. I cannot myself refrain from making observation that the mining engineer in a number of such cases has acted with undue haste but it was for the Government to see what action they propose to take against him. The petitioner could not be made to suffer on that account. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******