JUDGMENT 1. - At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the special appeal is ordered to be taken-up for final hearing today. 2. The respondent no. 4 (original petitioner) approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6636/92 praying to quash letter dated November 3,1992 (Annex. 5 to the writ petition) written by Mining Engineer, Udaipur. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed that according to Forest Officer, Banswara, the land of survey no. 368/1 of Tripura Sundri village Distt. Banswara was falling within the Forest area, therefore, the petitioner was required to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Forest Officer, Banswara. The petitioner also prayed that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Mining Engineer, Udaipur be directed to grant mining lease without insisting upon the production of No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. 3. When the petition came up for hearing, it was pointed-out before the learned Single Judge that the land was declared to be revenue land by the Collector, Banswara as per communication dated July 11, 1995. In view of this position, the learned Single Judge thought that there was no need to have such No Objection Certificate in granting the mining lease and hence, he gave the following directions : "In such circumstances, I see no reason why direction cannot issue as prayed for by clause III of prayer III. Accordingly, the State is directed to grant lease of the area applied for by the petitioner on the petitioner's depositing with the State Govt. or appropriate department a sum of Rs. 16,500/ per hectare as contemplated b y the order dated 11.7.95. The petition is thus, allowed. There will be no order as to costs." It is against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge that this special appeal is filed. 4. It is true that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings of S.B. Writ Petition. However, the Division Bench of this Court has granted leave to the appellant to file appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, it would not be proper for the High Court to straight way give directions to the authority concerned to grant lease. However, the Division Bench of this Court has granted leave to the appellant to file appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, it would not be proper for the High Court to straight way give directions to the authority concerned to grant lease. If the High Court comes to the conclusion that insistence of fulfilment of certain condition was unjust or unlawful, the High Court may observe that the case of the applicant/ petitioner concerned may be dealt with in accordance with law without insisting upon the unlawful and or extraneous condition. Having made such observations, it should be left to the authority concerned to decide the application in accordance with law. Such course is required to be adopted in view of the fact that ordinarily an authority on whom the power is conferred under the appropriate provisions of the statute should be allowed to exercise the power conferred upon it. Ordinarily, judicial review is an exercise to be taken by the Courts after a decision is taken-up. Judicial review would not and ordinarily should not precede the decision making process. If such course is not adopted, the executive machinery of the Government would come to a grinding hault, inasmuch as, almost all the cases will remain stuck up in Courts. Moreover, if such directions are given, the same would also not be in consonance with the basic principles of separation of powers of executive and judiciary, which is one of the basic features of our constitutional scheme. However, it may be stated that no hard and fast formula can be laid down. In a given set of circumstances, directions as given by the learned Single Judge may be given by the Court in order to secure the ends of justice, but such cases would ordinarily be exceptional and rare. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this particular, case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the special appeal is disposed of with the following directions:- "In the result, the special appeal is partly allowed. The directions given by the learned Single judge, which have been abstracted here in above are quashed and set-aside. The respondents nth 1 i.e. State Govt. of Rajasthan and no. The directions given by the learned Single judge, which have been abstracted here in above are quashed and set-aside. The respondents nth 1 i.e. State Govt. of Rajasthan and no. 2 i.e. Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease in respect of the land of survey no. 368/1 of Tripura Sundri village Distt. Banswara without insisting upon the production of the No Objection Certificate from the Forest Officer, Banswara. The respondents are further directed to consider the application and decide the same in accordance with law latest by Feb. 12, 1996. The State Government of Rajasthan is directed to see that the papers of the petitioner's case are placed before the appropriate authority on whom the powers are conferred for deciding such application." 7. The special appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******