JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioner had prayed for a declaration that he is not required to take prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for his lease hold area. He had further prayed for quashing the office order contained in Memo No. 1751 dated 25.10.1996 (Annexure 7) whereby his application for grant of second renewal of the stone mining lease with respect to a portion of the leasehold area i.e. Plot No. 711 of an Area of 4.50 Acres of Hazaribagh Thana No. 250 at Village Bamhani, District Hazaribagh was rejected. 2. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Rajni Kant Patel was granted mining lease for stone in the year 1976 for a period of five years. He did stone mining operation in certain area. His mining lease was cancelled on 6.9.1983 for nonpayment of dues and possession was taken over from him. Petitioner was granted mining lease on 4.7.1986 vide Annexure 1 for five years with a stipulation that he will work only in the broken area and for working on other areas, permission of the Central Government will be required. Accordingly, possession of the leased land was given to him on 21.9.1986 (Annexure 2). The lease was renewed. By the impugned order (Annexure 7), he was informed that his second renewal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner as the area in question was a forest area and there was no permission from the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 3. Mr. Mehta referred to Annexure 3 dated 6.11.1992, followed by Annexure 6 series, written by the District Mining Officer, to the Divisional Forest Officer, to show that the petitioner had also duly applied for permission and the same was sent to the Forest Department for being forwarded to the concerned department of the Central Government. He submitted that petitioner did not receive any order rejecting his application for permission. He also referred to Annexure A (enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer) to show that the Forest Department itself found that there was a broken area of about 207ft x 152 ft. x 4ft. (deep). He submitted that petitioner did not receive any order rejecting his application for permission. He also referred to Annexure A (enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer) to show that the Forest Department itself found that there was a broken area of about 207ft x 152 ft. x 4ft. (deep). He further submitted that petitioner is not at fault as on the one hand, petitioners application for permission has not been rejected, and on the other hand, his renewal has been rejected on the ground that there is no permission. He further submitted that in Ambica Quaries case the situation was different. In that case, the State Government was of the opinion that no renewal should be granted. He lastly submitted that petitioner has been continuing with the mining operation in the said broken areas in terms of the interim order dated 15.11.1996 passed in this case and has been paying all legal dues and there is no reason why he may not be allowed to continue with the stone query in question till a decision is taken on his application for permission. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Ors. and submitted that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench allowed such prayer. 4. The State counsel could not show that petitioners said application was rejected before rejecting to renew his lease or thereafter. He submitted that order may be passed in terms of the said judgment of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Supra). 5. In the circumstances, if petitioners said application has been rejected, the respondents shall communicate such order to him; otherwise they will forward such application to the concerned authority of the Central Government, if not already forwarded; within six weeks of communication of this order along with a copy of this order. It is expected that the concerned authority will take a decision on the petitioners application, in accordance with law if not already taken, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said application. Till an order is communicated/passed on the petitioners application, stay of operation of the impugned order (Annexure 7) shall continue on the condition that petitioner will work only within the said broken area and he will not cause any damage to any tree. Till an order is communicated/passed on the petitioners application, stay of operation of the impugned order (Annexure 7) shall continue on the condition that petitioner will work only within the said broken area and he will not cause any damage to any tree. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.