JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—A lease for minor minerals is granted either under Chapter II or Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963). Prior to 30th May, 2012, mining leases were being granted under Chapter II. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 31st May, 2012 under Rule 23 by which it was decided to grant mining lease under Chapter IV. Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 provide that a lease could be granted by way of auction, auction-cum-tender and by tender process. 2. In furtherance of the Government Order dated 31st May, 2012, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014 giving guidelines for issuing a mining lease through e-tendering process. Paragraph 8 and 13 of the Government Order dated 8th July, 2014 stipulated that the lessee was required to obtain an environmental clearance certificate before a lease could be granted. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of these Government orders, filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 9.6.2014 (Annexure 11) and Government Order dated 8.7.2014 (Annexure 12) to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue notice for settlement of the mining lease in accordance with direction given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra), M.C. Mehta (supra) and Nar Narayan Mishra (supra) as well as Pravesh Kumar (supra) passed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition throughout in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner contended that he is a holder of a mining lease and is also a prospective bidder and has a locus standi to question the intention of the State Government in directing the lessee to obtain an environmental clearance certificate. (iv) Award the cost of the writ petition throughout in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner contended that he is a holder of a mining lease and is also a prospective bidder and has a locus standi to question the intention of the State Government in directing the lessee to obtain an environmental clearance certificate. The petitioner contended that it is the duty of the State Government to obtain an environmental clearance certificate prior to advertising an area in question for settling the lease and to this extent, the directions given in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (4) SCC 629 , had not been complied with. 4. The Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) decided on 27th February, 2012 laid down certain guidelines for grant of a mining lease. The recommendations made by the Supreme Court are encapsulated as under: (1) Minimum size of mine lease should be 5 hectares. (2) Minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years. (3) A cluster approach to mines should be taken in case of smaller mines leases operating currently. (4) Mine plans should be made mandatory for minor minerals as well. (5) A separate corpus should be created for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas. (6) Hydro-geological reports should be prepared for mining proposed below groundwater table. (7) For river bed mining, leases should be granted stretch wise, depth may be restricted to 3m/water level, whichever is less, and safety zones should be worked out. (8) The present classification of minerals into major and minor categories should be re-examined by the Ministry of Mines in consultation with the States. 5. In addition to the aforesaid, the Supreme Court further directed: “We are of the view that all State Governments/Union Territories have to give due weight to the above mentioned recommendations of the MoEF which are made in consultation with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view and therefore the State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.” 6. Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view and therefore the State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.” 6. Earlier to these directions, the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 had passed an order dated 18th March, 2004 and 8th May, 2009 holding that no mining including mining of minor minerals under any lease, permit or grant could be allowed without prior environmental clearance. The same direction was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) wherein it directed all State Governments and the Union Territories to give due weight to the recommendations of Ministry of Environment and Forest as well as to the Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines, which according to the Supreme Court was very vital from the environmental and ecological point of view. The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to frame appropriate rules in accordance with the said recommendations. 7. In Mohammad Kausar Jahan v. Union of India and others, 2001 (5) ADJ 125, decided on 29th April, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 9416 (MB) 2010, a Division Bench of this Court held that it was mandatory to obtain an environmental clearance under the Notification dated 16th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The Court noticed that protection of natural environment was one of the fundamental duties of every citizen under Article 51A of the Constitution of India and that Article 48A of the Constitution obliged the State to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wild life of the country. 8. In Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (2) ADJ 166 , a Division Bench of this quashed the Government Order dated 26th July, 2012 and the consequential notice issued by the District Magistrate inviting application for grant of mining lease by e-tendering on the ground that it did not meet the requirement as per the direction of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra). Similarly, in Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (6) ADJ 178 , the tender notice dated 8/11th March, 2013 was quashed on the ground that the applicant was required to seek an environmental clearance certificate. The Court directed the State Government to frame the Rules accordingly. 9. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the decisions of this Court, the petitioner approached the writ Court contending that it was the obligation of the State Government to amend the Rules, especially with regard to obtaining an environmental clearance certificate prior to advertising the area in question. Since this had not been done and the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) had not been complied with, the petitioner prayed that no lease should be granted till such time the directions given by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) and other decisions of this Court are not complied with. 10. This Court after considering the matter prima facie found that the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) as well as the observations made in various decisions of this Court had not been complied with and, consequently, an interim order dated 16th September, 2014 was passed restraining the State Government from executing or renewing any mining lease of minor minerals in the State of U.P. till it complied with the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra). 11. A short counter-affidavit dated 10th August, 2014 and a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 29th August, 2014 has been filed duly sworn by the Chief Secretary indicating therein that requisite steps have been taken by the State Government ensuring compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) by which the Rules of 1963 have been amended by the 35th Amendment Rules and 36th Amendment Rules, which came into force on 23rd December, 2012 and 26th February, 2014. Under the 36th Amendment Rules, Rule 34 was amended stipulating therein that the lessee would start mining operations only after obtaining the environmental clearance certificate as per the Notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest as amended from time to time. Under the 36th Amendment Rules, Rule 34 was amended stipulating therein that the lessee would start mining operations only after obtaining the environmental clearance certificate as per the Notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest as amended from time to time. It was also indicated in Rule 34 that the application was required to be made by the project proponent/end user agency and, consequently, it was upon the lessee to obtain the environmental clearance certificate. Subsequently, the State Government has filed a counter-affidavit and a supplementary-affidavit dated 27th October, 2014 bringing on record the fact that a Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014 has been issued rescinding the Government Order dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014. Further, the State Government in the said affidavit have brought on record the 37th Amendment Rules, 2014 amending Rule 3, 9 and 10 of the Rules of 1963 and further inserting Rule 9A and 52A. By this 37th Amendment Rules, 2014, the State Government has now thought fit to grant lease under Chapter II, III and VI of the Rules of 1963 and, consequently, doing away with the granting of lease under Chapter IV. 12. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, we have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, the learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 13. The learned Advocate General contended that the writ petition has now become infructuous, since the Government Order dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014 has now been rescinded. Consequently, prayer No. 1 has become infructuous and that prayer No. 2, being connected with prayer No. 1, has also become infructuous. Even otherwise, the learned Advocate General contended that by virtue of the amendment of the Rules by the 35th, 36th and 37th Amendments, compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court has been made and a compliance affidavit has also been filed before the Supreme Court of India. The Advocate General submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the judgment of Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) has not been complied with nor the amendments have been challenged. The Advocate General submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the judgment of Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) has not been complied with nor the amendments have been challenged. It was also contended that no specific instance has been brought on record to show violation of obtaining environmental clearance certificate or any other direction of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra). 14. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the issue raised by the petitioner was one of public importance bordering public interest and, therefore, the Court should seriously consider the non-compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court by the State Government and ensure that the natural environment is protected as per Article 51A of the Constitution of India since Article 48A of the Constitution obliges the State Government to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wild life of the country which, in the instant case has not being done. Since the State Government has not been made the necessary amendment in the Rules, it was the duty of the Court to direct the State Government to stop all mining activities until the directions of the Supreme Court are complied with in letter and in spirit. The learned Senior Counsel contended that apart from the fact that the burden to obtain the environmental clearance certificate had wrongly been placed upon the lessee, the 35th, 36th and 37th Amendment was not in consonance with the directions of Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) and, therefore, tacit compliance of the Supreme Court judgment in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) had not been done by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel contended that pursuant to the Model Rules of 2010, no mining plan had been formulated by the State Government, which was vital for the environment and ecological impact and, in the absence of proper Rules having not been framed, the State Government could not be permitted to issue any mining lease. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the petitioner is basically aggrieved by the issuance of the Government Order dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014. These Government Orders have now been rescinded by the Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the petitioner is basically aggrieved by the issuance of the Government Order dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014. These Government Orders have now been rescinded by the Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014. Consequently, prayer No. 1 in the writ petition has become infructuous. In so far as the second relief is concerned, namely, that the settlement of mining lease could only be issued in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra), M.C. Mehta (supra), Nar Narayan Mishra (supra) and Pravesh Kumar (supra) there is nothing on record to indicate that the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) has not been complied with. The amendments brought out by the State Government by the 35th, 36th and 37th Amendment have not been challenged by the petitioner. Further, no specific instance has been brought to the knowledge of the Court to show that the State Government has issued any lease deed in violation of the environmental clearance or other directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra). General arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the 35th, 36th and 37th Amendments are not in consonance with the directions given in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) or that no mining plan has been formulated or incorporated as per the Model Rules of 2010 cannot be taken into consideration unless specific pleadings are made by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the absence of specific pleadings, the Court cannot take cognizance of such arguments merely on the ground that the petitioner is raising an issue, which is of public importance or it borders a public interest litigation. 16. We are constrained to observe that the present writ petition is not a petition filed in public interest. Paragraph 3 of the writ petition clearly indicates the locus standi of the petitioner who claims himself to be a lease holder as well as a prospective bidder. The petitioner was therefore, aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid Government Orders dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014 by which the lessee was required to obtain the environmental clearance certificate for grant of a lease under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963. These Government Orders have now been rescinded. The petitioner was therefore, aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid Government Orders dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014 by which the lessee was required to obtain the environmental clearance certificate for grant of a lease under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963. These Government Orders have now been rescinded. The lease is now to be granted under Chapter II, III and VI of the Rules. The 36th Amendment Rules has amended Rule 34 which makes it obligatory for a project proponent or the end user agency to obtain the environmental clearance certificate. The said Rule has not been challenged nor there is anything on record to suggest that the petitioner is aggrieved by these Rules. 17. The facts stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition makes it apparently clear that the writ petition has basically been filed to protect the business or commercial interest of the petitioner, which he seeks to espouse. We do not think that the matter was such which raises an issue of public importance. The arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel has only academic value at the present moment which would be tested in an appropriate case. 18. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions has held that in order to have have a locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, that is to say, there must be an infringement of some legal interest in order to give the applicant a locus standi in the matter. (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 and Dr. Satyanarayana Simha v. S. Lal & Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 2720 ) 19. On account of Court’s interpretation, environmental PIL has emerged. The Supreme Court in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., 1990 (4) SCC 449 , observed that every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On account of Court’s interpretation, environmental PIL has emerged. The Supreme Court in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., 1990 (4) SCC 449 , observed that every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court observed that anything which endeavours or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws that quality of life and living by the people are entitled to take recourse to Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions. 21. In the instant case, the petitioner contends that he has suffered a legal injury and, therefore, he has a legal right to invoke the writ jurisdiction. In our opinion, a legal right means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. We find that the petitioner is not suffering from any legal injury and, at best is suffering an imaginary injury. We find that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, as his rights or interest has not been adversely affected or jeopardised. The rules of locus standi cannot be diluted to such an extent to bring into its ambit the case of the petitioner as an aggrieved person. 22. In the instant case, we are doubtful that the petitioner has a locus standi to question any action of the State. In order to have a locus standi, the petitioner must show that he has a substantial interest in the subject-matter and further must show as to how such interest has adversely affected him. Merely by showing, that the petitioner is a prospective bidder gives rise to an academic possibility that the petitioner may get an interest in the subject-matter will not entitle the petitioner to question the action of the State Government. The petitioner, in our opinion, is not an aggrieved person. 23. Merely by showing, that the petitioner is a prospective bidder gives rise to an academic possibility that the petitioner may get an interest in the subject-matter will not entitle the petitioner to question the action of the State Government. The petitioner, in our opinion, is not an aggrieved person. 23. We also find that in Mohammad Kausar Jahan case (supra), Nar Narain Mishra’s case (supra) as well as in Pravesh Kumar’s case (supra), the Court had no occasion to deal with the 35th, 36th and 37th Amendments, inasmuch as these judgments were given prior to the amendments being made in the Rules of 1963. 24. In view of the amendments made in the Rules and in view of the fact that Rule 34 as amended by the 36th Amendment Rules, the environmental clearance certificate is required to be obtained by the project proponent or the end user agency, which has not been challenged, and in view of the fact that the Government Orders dated 9th June, 2014 and 8th July, 2014 have been rescinded and now a mining lease has to be granted under Chapter II, III and VI of the Rules, we do not find any reason to permit the interim order to continue. We do not have any material before us to come to a conclusion that the direction of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar’s case (supra) has not been complied with. 25. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. —————