JUDGMENT 1. - The matter has come for orders on an application, filed by respondent No.4, under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte stay order dated 27.05.2011, but on the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off, finally. 2. From the averments made in the writ petition along with documents as well as submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that petitioners filed a revision petition under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur against the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by Director, Mines and Geology, whereby he rejected the petitioners' representation for inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the quarry license No.68 Ulhadi Range, Makrana. The said revision petition is pending before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, it was listed on 23.05.2011, petitioners had filed rejoinder in the matter on 07.03.2011, objection was raised by non-petitioner No.3 about taking on record the rejoinder, arguments were heard on the objection and the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 23.05.2011, declined the petitioners to file rejoinder and fixed the case for arguments on 06.06.2011. Being aggrieved with the above order dated 23.05.2011, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. This Court while issuing notice to show cause on 27.05.2011, passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 23.05.2011 and also directed the Revisional Authority to take on record the rejoinder filed by petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties admitted that in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court, the Revisional Court has taken the rejoinder of petitioners on record on 06.06.2011. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents filed their reply to revision petition and in the facts and circumstances of the case, filing of rejoinder was necessary, therefore, the Revisional Authority should have taken the rejoinder of petitioners on record. He, therefore, prayed that impugned order may be set aside and rejoinder of petitioners, which has already been taken on record in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court, be allowed to be taken on record. 6. He, therefore, prayed that impugned order may be set aside and rejoinder of petitioners, which has already been taken on record in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court, be allowed to be taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that rejoinder can be taken on record only with the permission of the Court, since the Revisional Court refused to grant any permission in this regard, therefore, it should not be allowed to be taken on record. 7. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that rejoinder can be taken on record with permission of the Court, I think it fit and proper to direct that rejoinder filed by petitioners be allowed to be taken on record and be considered at the time of hearing of the revision petition. 8. Consequently, the writ petition as well as stay application, both, are disposed off and it is directed that rejoinder of petitioner, which has been taken on record on 06.06.2011, will be deemed to have been taken on record finally and the same will be considered at the time of hearing of the revision petition by the Revisional Authority. 9. Since the writ petition has been disposed off finally, therefore, no order is required to be passed on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and another application of petitioners to list the above application at an early date and both the applications also stand disposed off. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition disposed of. *******