JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted an application before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer seeking quarry permit for extraction of sand from the land mentioned in his said application appearing at page 27 of the stay application. The Learned Trial Judge dismissed the said writ petition by holding, inter alia, that since the writ petitioner was granted only temporary rights and his rights ceased upon the expiry of the period, no prejudice occasioned to the writ petitioner by reason of the acts complained of. 2. The legality of the said judgment and/or order of the Learned Trial Judge passed on 17th February, 2014 is under challenge in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the appellant. 3. Though the said application was filed by the writ petitioner before the authority which was competent to consider the petitioner's said application at the relevant time, but subsequently, in view of the notification issued by the State Government on 21st January, 2014 read with notifications dated 6th June, 2014 and 9th June, 2014, the Executive Engineers of the respective divisions attached to Irrigation & Waterways Department were authorised to grant quarry permit in accordance with the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 2002 for extracting or removing riverbed materials from any specified land on payment of royalty at the rate/rates as may be fixed from time to time. 4. Thus, in view of the said notifications, the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officers are no longer the authority who can consider the petitioner's application for grant of quarry permit. 5. Under such circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with this observation that in the event any competent application seeking grant of quarry permit is submitted by the petitioner to the prescribed authority as per the aforesaid notifications, the concerned authority will consider the petitioner's said application as expeditiously as possible on its own merit independent of the findings which were arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by him. 6. Since nothing more is required to be adjudicated upon in this appeal, the appeal is also disposed of by treating it as on day's list. 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the application for stay which is deemed to be disposed of. 8. 6. Since nothing more is required to be adjudicated upon in this appeal, the appeal is also disposed of by treating it as on day's list. 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the application for stay which is deemed to be disposed of. 8. The application for stay being CAN 3442 of 2014 is thus, deemed to be disposed of. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocate for the appellant immediately. Tapash Mookherjee, J. - I agree.