ORDER M. M. DAS, J. : Being aggrieved by the order of the Govt. of Orissa dated 7.1.2005 granting quarry lease of 8.944 hects. in village Bhagabanpur of Ganjam district in favour of Opposite Party No.4, M/s. Ajax Petro, the petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashing the above order annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-7. 2. It the case of the petitioner that it is a private limited company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 and it deals with all types of stones and rocks used for decorative and industrial purposes. It also under takes export of such decora¬tive stones and further, it holds quarry lease in the State of Orissa mainly near Berhampur area in the district of Ganjam. The petitioner has alleged that in spite of the fact that its granite processing plant has been registered by the District Industries Centre, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam and its application dated 3.7.1999 for grant of quarry lease to an extent of 25.27 hects. in the village Bhagabanpur has been forwarded to the Government on being recommended by the Mining Officer, Ganjam Circle, Ber¬hampur, under the letter Annexure-3, but in the meantime, without disposing of the application of the petitioner, the Govt. has decided to grant quarry lease to the Opposite Party No.4 to an extent of 8.944 hects. which overlaps the area for which grant of quarry lease has been recommended in favour of the petitioner. 3. Mr. M. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner sub¬mitted that the Opp.party No.4 made an application for grant of quarry lease to an extent of 37.15 hects. over plot Nos. 1, 2,3 and 4 under Khata No.215 in Mouza Bhagabanpur, Dist. Ganjam. On such application, the Mining Officer in proceeding No.388/1990 has decided to grant the said quarry lease in favour of opposite party No.4 but however, there was no lease executed in favour of opposite party No. 4. He, therefore, contends that in view of the Rule 10 of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990, if no lease deed is executed within the time fixed, the Controlling Authority may revoke the order, cancel the lease and forfeit the application fee. He, therefore, contends that in view of the Rule 10 of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990, if no lease deed is executed within the time fixed, the Controlling Authority may revoke the order, cancel the lease and forfeit the application fee. Hence, he submitted that as no lease deed was executed in favour of the opposite party No.4 within the time stipulated, it would be deemed that the said order for granting quarry lease in favour of the opposite party No.4 passed on 1.2.1990, has been cancelled. On that basis, Mr. Kanungo submitted that it was no more open to the Government to review the said decision and pass an order as under Annexure-7 to grant quarry lease in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 over a portion of the area for which the application of the petitioner has been recommended. 4. Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4, relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said Opposite Party, submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is misconceived, inasmuch as, the contention of the petitioner that the order granting quarry lease in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 passed on 1.2.1990 would be deemed to have been cancelled, is wholly fallacious. He submitted that under Rule 10 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990, which has been repealed in the meantime and has been substituted by the Rules which came into effect form the year 2004, there cannot be a deemed cancellation of an order granting quarry lease inasmuch as the said discretion of revoking the order, cancelling the lease and forfeiting the application fee can only be exercised when no lease deed is executed within the time fixed due to any default on the part of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no iota of material produced by any of the parties before this Court to show that there was a default on the part of the Opposite Party No.4, for which the lease was unable to be executed within the time stipulated. Mr. Lenka further submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-7) has subse¬quently been revised and instead of an area of 8.944 hects., the Government has decided to lease out an area of 9.045 hects. Mr. Lenka further submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-7) has subse¬quently been revised and instead of an area of 8.944 hects., the Government has decided to lease out an area of 9.045 hects. The said grant of quarry lease is based on the Rules of the year, 1990 as well as the subsequent Rule of the year, 2004. According to him, since the Opposite Party No.4 is operating the quarry lease in the State extending to an area of 140.783 hects. and he can at the most hold such lease for a maximum area of 150 hects., the Government rightly decided to grant quarry lease only to an extent of 9.065 hects. and there being no infirmity in the order under Annexure-7 and even in the subsequent modified order dated 11.2.2005 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 as Annexure A/3, that writ application should be dismissed. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing on the behalf of the State, relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, submitted that the petitioner has made an application for grant of quarry lease to an extent of 25.272 hects. which forms a part of Plot Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 under Khata No.215 of Mouza Bhagabanpur and the said application has been recommended to the Government for grant of quarry lease. It appears form the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the total area available is 37.15 hects. and on that basis, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that even if the lease deed is executed in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 for an area of 9.065 hects. since more than the area applied for, by the petitioner, still remains, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the order granting quarry lease over 9.065 hects. in favour of the Opposite Party No.4. 6. Though several other contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the factual posi¬tion and upon scrutiny of the record of the proceedings produced by the learned Addl.Standing Counsel pursuant to our direction, we do not feel it necessary to enter into and determine the contentious issues raised by the respective parties. 7. As we find that the total mining area available to be leased out is 37.15 hects. 7. As we find that the total mining area available to be leased out is 37.15 hects. out of which the State has decided to grant quarry lease to an extent of 9.065 hects. to the Opposite Party No.4 and the case of the petitioner has also been recom¬mended for grant of quarry lease over an area of 25.27 hects, there can be no difficulty in granting both the quarry lease in favour of the petitioner as well as Opposite party No.4. 8. We, therefore, dispose of this writ application with a direction that before execution of the lease deed in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 granting quarry lease to an extent of 9.065 hects. over the plots of land in village Bhagabanpur as mentioned earlier, the concerned authority having recommended to grant lease to the petitioner over an area of 25.27 hects., will take a final decision thereon within a period of 8 weeks form the date of production of the certified copy of this order and there¬after shall demarcate the respective areas to be leased out in favour of the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.4 in such a manner so as to prevent any future dispute between them with regard to the operation of quarry lease and upon doing so, the respective quarry leases shall be executed in favour of the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.4. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce the certified copy of this order before the appropriate authority of the Government for compliance of our directions given above. S. B. ROY, C.J. I agree. Petition disposed of.