JUDGMENT 1. - Case comes up on the application under Article 226 moved by the respondent No. 5 for prosecuting the petitioner Chandi Dan stating that this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the mining lease being ML No. 54/80 transferred in favour of the applicant Amitab Tiwari vide Annx. 1. It has been stated that the writ petition has been filed on behalf of four other persons by Chandi Dan without any authorisation. It has also been stated that the Vakalatnama also does not bear signature of the petitioner No. 4 Om Prakash S/o Shri Heeralal. It has been further stated that the petitioner Chandi Dan was not Sarpanch at the point of time. It has been prayed that the petitioner Chandi Dan may be prosecuted. In support of the application Anx. A to D have been filed by the applicant- non-petitioner. The applicant has submitted that on account of the exparte stay order dated 4.11.1991 the respondent No. 5 has been deprived from operating the mining area. This Court ordered that "Meanwhile, the respondent No. 5 is restrained from operating the mines situated in the khasra Numbers 1864/1, 1864/2, 1860 and 1864/2722, measuring 249 Bighas 10 Biswas situated in the abadi of Gram Panchayat, Borunda and the respondents No. 1 to 4 will not renew the mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 5." The petitioners were made responsible to get the notices served upon the non-petitioners. 2. One more application has been moved by the respondent No. 5 along with documents Anx. R/5/4 to R/5/8 seeking a direction to be issued to the respondent-Mining Department to refund a sum of Rs. 63,735/- to the applicant with interest for the period for which he was not allowed to operate disputed mines in pursuance of the order of this Court. 3. In reply to the application for prosecution of the petitioner, it has been stated that the respondent No. 5 is flouting the order of this Court. In support of the reply documents Anx. 7 to 9 have also been filed. 4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating that the petitioner may be prosecuted. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have also moved an application under Article 226(3) for vacating the stay order stating that the period of lease has already expired. 7 to 9 have also been filed. 4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating that the petitioner may be prosecuted. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have also moved an application under Article 226(3) for vacating the stay order stating that the period of lease has already expired. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 5 is flouting the order of this Court and a revision is pending regarding the subject matter. In support of the application documents Anx. R. 1 to Anx. R. 5 have been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4. 6. As agreed the matter is heard finally. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. There are serious disputed questions of fact and allegations & counter allegations have been levelled by the parties against each other. That apart the so called lease has already expired and the renewal application is still pending. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and it would not be appropriate for me to go into these questions particularly when revision pertaining to the disputed mining area is already pending. In view of this, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, this will not debar for consideration of renewal application according to law and no order on the application can be passed at this stage but looking to the conduct of the petitioner, Chandi Dan respondent No. 5 will be free to avail the remedy available to him for prosecuting the petitioner. Keeping in view the alleged circumstances of filing this joint writ petition pending revision I fell necessary to impose a cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousand only) on the petitioners though the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. It is also strange that the respondents have not bothered to get the matter decided earlier when the lease period has already expired. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Mines Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The cost be deposited in the High Court, Legal Aid Board Jodhpur within one month.Writ petition dismissed. *******