Honble KOKJE, J.–Heard. Non-petitioner-Ashok Kumar brought a suit against the State of Rajasthan and the officers of its Mining and Forest Departments claiming permanent injunction against the interference with his mining operations in Plot No. 25 in Village Naharsinghi, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar. A temporary injunction was also sought which was refused by the trial Court but the first appellate Court granted it. Against that order, this present revision petition has been filed. (2). The case of the plaintiff was that he was holding the lease in receipt of Plot No. 25 from the Mining Department and on 11.6.1981, the plot was leased to him for five years. It is contended that for a further period, renewal was prayed for by filing an application but the authorities did not renew it within time and therefore, a revision was also filed by the plaintiff to the Central Government and on 16.7.1993, the Central Government directed reconsideration of the application for renewal. According to the plaintiff, this application was not heard and without any enquiry, on 17.10.1994, the application for renewal was rejected stating that the plot falls within the area of forest land. According to the plaintiff, the Division Forest Officer had by his letter dated 15.9.1980 while granting permission for mining had removed the area from the forest land. During the pendency of the revision, temporary injunction was sought seeking the relief that no obstruction should be made in the mining operations and the app-lication for renewal be not rejected on the ground that the area falls within forest land. (3). Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, I am of the view that the trial Court was right in rejecting the application. The lease had already expired and the question of renewal was being debated before the authorities and the Court. In such situation, to grant an injunction, which has the effect of allowing the lessee whose lease has expired by efflux of time and allow him to continue to operate in an area which according to the State Government is a forest area, would not be proper. There was no basis for the grant of such an injunction, there being no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. (4). The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored.