JUDGMENT P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and the matter heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the common order dated 26.08.2010 passed by Central Government Tribunal i.e. respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.17 (16)/2008-RC.II AND F No.17 (18)/2008-RC.II. Prayer is also made for maintaining the order passed by respondent No.3 on 26.06.2008 in respect of grant of mining license in favour of the petitioner. Further, a direction is sought to set aside the notification dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Central Government-respondent No.2 under Section 17A(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act”). 3. The petitioner, a partnership firm having its office at Kamptee, District Nagpur, vide its application dated 16.09.2004 had applied for grant of mining lease in respect of 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara to Government of Maharashtra i.e. respondent No.3. On 12.10.2006 respondent No.3 notified few mineral areas for mineral concession in accordance with sub-section 2 and 4 of Section-11 of the “MMDR Act”. Respondent No.3 vide the said notification (annexure-B with the petition) invited applications for mineral concession in respect of areas notified in the said notification. Entry at serial No.20 of the said notification shows that 69.10 H/R of area was notified for Manganese Ore from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara for mining lease. 4. On 06.12.2006 respondent No.4 i.e. Manganese Ore India Limited also preferred an application for grant of mining lease in 36.63 H/R of area from village Chikhla. Total 37 persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 had applied for the mining lease in pursuance of the said notification. Hearing was conducted by the State Government on 05.05.2008 at Sahyadri Guest House, Mumbai, in regard to grant of the mining lease as aforesaid. After considering the applications of 37 applicants as mentioned above and after having considered the submissions made on behalf of said applicants, the Minister for Industries, Mining, Cultural Affairs and Protocol, Government of Maharashtra passed an order on 26.06.2008 thereby granting the application of the petitioner and rejecting the applications of all other applicants including that of respondent No.4. 5. After considering the applications of 37 applicants as mentioned above and after having considered the submissions made on behalf of said applicants, the Minister for Industries, Mining, Cultural Affairs and Protocol, Government of Maharashtra passed an order on 26.06.2008 thereby granting the application of the petitioner and rejecting the applications of all other applicants including that of respondent No.4. 5. Respondent No.4, being aggrieved by the said order preferred the revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as “M.C. Rules” to the Central Government. Present petitioner was respondent No.1 in the said revision application, whereas the State Government was respondent No.2. During pendency of said revision application before the Central Government Tribunal, the Central Government, acting under the powers conferred upon it by the provisions of Section 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act reserved some areas from District Nagpur and from District Bhandara for carrying out mining activities in respect of Manganese Ore through Manganese Ore India Limited i.e. respondent No.4 by issuing a notification dated 29.09.2009 in that regard. 6. The Central Government Tribunal decided the revision application so filed by respondent No.4 along with another revision application filed by M/s. Prithvi Enterprises by a common order passed on 26.08.2010. The Central Government Tribunal set aside the order dated 26.06.2008 passed by respondent No.3. 7. The order passed by respondent No.1 Tribunal reveals that it allowed the revision application filed by respondent No.4 mainly on the ground that the area recommended by the State Government for grant of mining lease in favour of the present petitioner vide order dated 26.06.2008 was reserved under subsection (1A) of Section 17-A of the MMDR Act for carrying out prospecting or mining operations through Manganese Ore India Limited i.e. Respondent No.4 under notification dated 29.09.2009. The second reason given by the Central Government Tribunal is that on merits also respondent No.4 is better deserving vis-a-vis the petitioner in view of the requirements/qualifications provided under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Government Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13.04.2011. 9. Firstly, the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Government Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13.04.2011. 9. Firstly, the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. Secondly, according to the petitioner, the notification issued subsequently by the Central Government could not have been considered by the State Government while passing the order dated 26.06.2008 and respondent No.1 Tribunal was palpably wrong in testing the order dated 26.06.2008 in the light of said subsequently issued notification dated 29.09.2009. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.1 wrongly put the burden on the State Government to clarify whether the area notified vide notification dated 29.09.2009 was the same granted to the petitioner vide order dated 26.06.2008 without providing sufficient time to the State Government to explain the situation. The learned counsel further submitted that the notification dated 29.09.2009 was produced during the course of hearing at the Eleventh hour without supplying its copy to the State Government or the present petitioner before hand. The learned counsel further submitted that the State Government as well as the petitioner therefore could not make necessary submissions in that regard. According to the learned counsel non-providing an opportunity to the State Government as well as to the petitioner by the Central Government Tribunal for making submissions on the notification dated 29.09.2009 has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that the notification dated 29.09.2009 has in fact no bearing on the mining lease granted of the area in favour of the petitioner, since it is a different area but for want of fair opportunity by the respondent No.1 this fact could not be brought to its notice. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the Central Government could have issued notification under Section 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, only in respect of the area not earlier notified for prospecting licence or mining lease. The learned counsel submitted that before issuance of the said notification, the State Government did not seem to have been consulted. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 overstepped its authority in setting aside the order passed by the State Government on 26.06.2008. The learned counsel submitted that before issuance of the said notification, the State Government did not seem to have been consulted. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 overstepped its authority in setting aside the order passed by the State Government on 26.06.2008. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No.1 failed in appreciating that respondent No.4 had applied for the mining lease of the area from village Chikhla as a Member of public and as such could not have thereafter sought reservation of the same area after having failed to compete with other applicants. For many such reasons, according to the learned counsel notification dated 29.09.2009 cannot be said to be valid. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supported the order passed by the Central Government Tribunal. The learned counsel submitted that the notification dated 29.09.2009 is perfectly legal and valid. The learned counsel submitted that the State Government’s order dated 26.06.2008 cannot be a bar for the Central Government to exercise its statutory powers under Section 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act, whereof notification dated 29.09.2009 came to be issued. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 on 26.08.2010 carries a specific reference that due opportunity was given to the State Government to explain whether the land recommended by the State Government vide order dated 26.06.2008 is the same land which has been reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.09.2009, but the State Government failed in submitting the said information which made the Tribunal to accept the submissions made by MOIL that the area reserved for mining lease by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.09.2009 is the same area recommended for mining lease by the State Government in favour of the petitioner vide order passed on 26.06.2008. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 Tribunal has categorically observed that even otherwise the MOIL is a better deserving applicant considering the qualifications and or requirements provided under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act for grant of the mining lease. The learned counsel therefore submitted that no fault can be found in the order passed by the respondent No.1Tribunal. 13. As stated earlier petitioner's first challenge is to the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. The learned counsel therefore submitted that no fault can be found in the order passed by the respondent No.1Tribunal. 13. As stated earlier petitioner's first challenge is to the maintainability of the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the recommendation made by the State Government for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 26.06.2008 was subject to the approval by the Central Government it could not have been challenged before its consideration by the Central Government. According to the learned counsel the revision preferred by respondent No.4 against the order dated 26.06.2008 was premature and the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the Central Government Tribunal thereupon is therefore unsustainable. 14. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geomin Minerals and Marketing Private Limited v State of Orissa and others, (2013) 7 SCC 571 . Learned counsel brought to our notice that in the said matter the recommendation to the Central Government by the State Government of Orissa in favour of POSCO under Section 11(3) and(5) of the MMDR Act was challenged by Geomin Minerals before the Orissa High Court. The Orissa High Court on its interpretation of Section 11(2), (3) and (4) held that Geomin Minerals and Marketing Private Limited was having preferential right for grant of licence and lease and that the recommendation made by the State Government under Section 11(5) in favour of the POSCO was invalid. The said Judgment was challenged by POSCO before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was allowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the High Court committed a grave error of law in deciding the case on merits and deciding the question of legality of the recommendation made by the State Government. The Apex Court has further observed that the High Court should have left that matter to the discretion of the Central Government to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law instead of entertaining a premature writ petition. The Apex Court has further observed that the High Court should have left that matter to the discretion of the Central Government to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law instead of entertaining a premature writ petition. Learned counsel invited our attention also to para 29 of the Judgment wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the High Court appears to have usurped the jurisdiction of the Central Government and that the scrutiny on merits by the High Court of the application received for obtaining mining lease was premature and the High Court should have refrained from entering into merits. 15. The learned counsel argued that in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment cited by him, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. 16. Opposing the submission so made by Advocate Shri Kukday, Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 had preferred the revision application against the rejection of its application by the State Government and there was no bar or prohibition for preferring such revision application. The learned counsel submitted that the approval of the Central Government was required for the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner and not for rejection of the application of respondent No.4. The learned counsel cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Assam and others v Om Prakash Mehta and others, (1973) 1 SCC 584 . In para 18 of which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “18. The High Court’s view that Rule 24(3) and the Explanation to Rule 54 are in contravention of Section 8 is vitiated by its assumption that every order to be passed on an application for renewal should be approved by the Central Government. This is not correct. Only renewal cannot be granted without the Central Government's approval and not rejection.” The revision application preferred by respondent No.4 was admittedly under Rule 54 of the Mining Concession Rules. Rule 54 reads as under :- “54. This is not correct. Only renewal cannot be granted without the Central Government's approval and not rejection.” The revision application preferred by respondent No.4 was admittedly under Rule 54 of the Mining Concession Rules. Rule 54 reads as under :- “54. Application for revision.-(1) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may, within [three months] of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government in triplicate in Form N, for revision of the order. The application should be accompanied by [a Bank Draft for [five thousand rupees] on a nationalised bank in the name of “Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Mines” payable at New Delhi or through a treasury challan for [five thousand rupees] under the Head of Account-0853 Non-ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries 102 Mineral Concession Fees, Rents and Royalties:] Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of [three months] if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time.” Sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 is more relevant, which reads thus:- “(2) In every application under sub-rule (1) against the order of a State Government refusing to grant a prospecting license or a mining lease, any person to whom a prospecting license or mining lease was granted in respect of the same area or for a part thereof, shall be impleaded as party”. 17. The plain reading of the above rule and sub-rule leaves no doubt that any person whose application has been rejected by the State Government can very well challenge the said order by filing revision application invoking Rule 54. The only duty cast upon him is to implead as a party to a person to whom the prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted vide the impugned order. It is not in dispute, that in the revision application preferred by respondent No.4 the present petitioner was impleaded a party. Secondly, the revision application filed by respondent No.4 obviously could not have been decided by the Tribunal without reference to and without looking into the merit of the order passed by the State Government recommending grant of lease in favour of the present petitioner. 18. Secondly, the revision application filed by respondent No.4 obviously could not have been decided by the Tribunal without reference to and without looking into the merit of the order passed by the State Government recommending grant of lease in favour of the present petitioner. 18. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the arguments so made by Shri Kukday that no revision application could have been preferred and could have been entertained by the Central Government Tribunal. 19. The second important objection raised by respondent No.1 as against the impugned order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Central Government Tribunal is that it has set aside the order dated 26.06.2008 passed by the State Government on the basis of the notification of the central Government subsequently issued on 29.09.2009. According to the petitioner, the notification subsequently issued could not have been considered by the State Government while passing the order dated 26.06.2008 and the respondent No.1 Tribunal was patently wrong in examining the impugned order in the light of subsequently issued notification. 20. As mentioned earlier, it is also the contention of the petitioner that notification dated 29.09.2009 does not have any bearing on the grant of mining lease to the petitioner by the State Government vide order dated 26062008, since the area reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009 is different than the area, mining lease of which has been granted in favour of the petitioner. 21. The petitioner is also challenging the notification dated 29.09.2009 as ultra vires on the ground that the said notification has been brought in ignorance of the State Government notification offering the same area for general public and inviting applications from them for mining lease. According to the petitioner there was no scope for the central Government to issue notification under Section 17A(1A), which authorizes such notification only in respect of the area not already held. The petitioner has further alleged that the issuance of notification dated 29.09.2009 is the violation of fundamental right of equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner the impugned notification has created beneficial position in favour of respondent No.4 who had earlier participated with the other participants including the petitioner and failed to obtain the lease of the area notified by the State Government vide notification dated 12.10.2006. 22. According to the petitioner the impugned notification has created beneficial position in favour of respondent No.4 who had earlier participated with the other participants including the petitioner and failed to obtain the lease of the area notified by the State Government vide notification dated 12.10.2006. 22. After having considered the contentions so raised in the petition and reiterated by the learned counsel in his arguments, it is apparently revealed that the grounds raised by the petitioner in challenge of the notification dated 29.09.2009 are contradictory to each other. At the first instance the petitioner has come up with the case that the notification dated 29.09.2009 does not have any bearing on the grant of lease in his favour by the State Government vide order dated 26.08.2008, since it is the different area than reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.09.2009 and immediately thereafter the petitioner has alleged that the said notification is ultra vires since it has been brought in ignorance of the State Government‘s notification offering the very same area for general public and having so offered the same and having received the applications there was no scope for Central Government for issuance of such notification under Section 17A( 1A). 23. If it is the case of the petitioner that the area mining lease of which has been granted in its favour by the State Government, is different than reserved vide notification dated 29.9.2009, there was no reason for it to make any demur against the notification dated 29.09.2009 and the petitioner then might not have alleged the Central Government Notification to be ultra vires and would not have sought its quashment. Had the petitioner brought on record any convincing material showing that both the lands are different and hence there was no reason for the Central Government Tribunal to set aside the State Government order dated 26.06.2008, it could have been said that there is substance in the allegation made by it. However, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the area reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009 by the Central Government is different than the area of which the State Government has granted mining lease in his favour. 24. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent No.4 brought to our notice some of the observations made by respondent No.1 Tribunal in its order passed on 26.08.2010. 24. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent No.4 brought to our notice some of the observations made by respondent No.1 Tribunal in its order passed on 26.08.2010. Facts stated in para 12 of the impugned order reveal that Shri S.S. Kulkarni, Secretary, Industries and Energy Department who was representing State Government, when was asked to comment upon the averment of the representative of respondent No.4 who was the petitioner before the Central Government Tribunal, that the same land granted by the State Government of Maharashtra vide impugned order dated 26.06.2008 has been reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.09.2009, Shri Kulkarni had contested the said averment and submitted that the land reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009 was different from the land recommended by the State Government vide order dated 26.06.2008. 25. The order passed by the respondent No.4 further reveals that Shri Kulkarni was advised to file written submissions within a period of five days by stating therein whether the land reserved in favour of the MOIL vide notification dated 29.09.2009 is the same or different from the land recommended for grant of mining lease by the State Government vide order dated 26.06.2008. Para 13 of the impugned order reveals that since there was no written communication from the State Government despite direction to their representative as mentioned herein above a further communication was sent to the State Government vide letter No.17 (16)/2008-RCII dated 11.12.2009 seeking specific and categorical reply whether the area recommended for grant of mining lease in favour of impleaded party i.e. the present petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.06.2008 included the area reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009 or not. It was made clear in the said letter that in the event of there being no reply from the State Government, it would be presumed that the submissions of the counsel of MOIL pertaining to reservation of recommended area would be taken as true. In the impugned order the respondent No.1 Tribunal has further observed that despite categorical direction there was no written submission from the State Government which led to the presumption that the averment made by the representative of MOIL is correct that the same area recommenced for mining lease in favour of the impleaded party has been reserved by the Central Government for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through MOIL. 26. 26. Considering the facts so discussed and the observations so made by the Central Government Tribunal in its order, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the State Government to explain that the area recommended by it for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner was different than the area reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009. 27. Now it has to be seen, whether there is any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner that the act of the Central Government to reserve the very same area for MOIL which has been granted by the State Government to the petitioner is patently illegal and arbitrary and hence needs to be set aside. 28. Section-17 of the MMDR Act speaks about the special powers of the Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain lands. Section 17-A permits the Central Government to conserve any mineral and for that purpose after consultation with the State Government reserve any area not already held under any prospecting license or mining lease. Section 17-A(1-A) is more relevant in the present matter since the alleged notification dated 29.09.2009 has been issued by invoking the said provision. Section 17-A(1-A) reads as under:- “(1-A) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, reserve any area not already held under any prospecting license or ming lease, for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government company or corporation owned or controlled buy it, and where it proposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.” 29. The petitioner has argued that mining lease of the area reserved vide notification dated 29.09.2009 has already been granted in his favour by the State Government vide its order dated 26.06.2008 and as such the Central Government could not have reserved the said land for undertaking mining operations through MOIL. 30. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioner is misconstruing the Section 17A(1-A) of the MMDR Act. 30. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioner is misconstruing the Section 17A(1-A) of the MMDR Act. The State Government's order dated 26.06.2008 which has been much emphasized by the petitioner, is only the recommendation of the State Government in favour of the petitioner for grant of lease of the area mentioned therein and the same was subject to the approval of the Central Government. Unless approved by the Central Government, State Government could not have granted the mining lease of the said area in favour of the petitioner. In fact no such lease has been granted in favour of the petitioner and the matter had remained at the stage of recommendations only. 31. It will be useful to note the provisions in the MMDR Act and M.C. Rules which require Central Government’s approval before grant of mining lease of any area in favour of any party. Section-5 of the MMDR Act provides restriction on the grant of prospecting licenses or mining leases. Proviso to Section 5(1) stipulates that in respect of any mineral specified in the first schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease shall be granted except the previous approval of the Central Government. There is no dispute that the Manganese Ore is specified in part-C of the First Schedule. The State Government therefore could not have granted the mining lease in the present matter without the previous approval of the Central Government. 32. Section-11 of the MMDR Act pertains to preferential right of certain persons for obtaining a prospecting license or mining lease as the case may be in respect of particular land over any other person. In the present case, the petitioner had applied to the State Government for obtaining a mining lease in respect of 69.10 H/R area of village Chikhla vide its application dated 16.09.2004. However, as there is nothing on record to show that except the petitioner somebody else has also applied for the mining lease of the said land, subsection (2) of Section-11 may not be pressed into service. However, as there is nothing on record to show that except the petitioner somebody else has also applied for the mining lease of the said land, subsection (2) of Section-11 may not be pressed into service. However, proviso to subsection (2) of Section-11 says that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease as the case may be and the State Government has invited applications by notification in the official Gazette for grant of such permit, license or lease, all the applications received during the period specified in such notification and the applications which have been received prior to the publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and have not been disposed of shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under subsection (2). 33. In the instant case admittedly the State Government had issued the notification on 12.10.2006 inviting applications for grant of mining lease in 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla which was subsequently reduced and or modified by the State Government to the extent of 58.60 H/R vide corrigendum dated 17.11.2006. In view of the proviso referred to hereinabove the application submitted by the petitioner on 16.09.2004 was liable to be considered though the notification inviting the offers was published on 12.10.2006. 34. Rule 22 of the M.C. Rules describes the entire procedure commencing from making the applications for grant of mining lease and further steps for processing of the said applications by the State Government and the obligations on the applicants who have applied for such mining lease. To decide the controversy in the present matter, sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 is relevant which is reproduced below :- “22. Application for grant of mining leases( 1) An application for grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf. [(4) On receipt of the application for the grant of a mining lease the State Government shall take decision to grant precise area for the said purpose and communicate such decision to the applicant. [(4) On receipt of the application for the grant of a mining lease the State Government shall take decision to grant precise area for the said purpose and communicate such decision to the applicant. On receipt of communication from the State Government of the precise areas to be grated, the applicant shall submit a mining plan, within a period of six months or such other period as may be allowed by the State Government, to the Central Government for approval. The applicant shall submit the mining plan, duly approved by the Central Government or by an officer duly authorised by the Central Government, to the State Government to grant mining lease over that area.]” 35. As provided in the aforesaid rule the State Government has communicated its decision dated 26.06.2008 to all concerned including the present petitioner and respondent No.4 vide its communication dated 28.07.2008 supplying thereby the copy of Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Minister of Mines dated 26.06.2008 and the comparative statement giving reasons for recommendation and rejections for the respective applications. As further provided, the duty was of the present petitioner to submit the mining plan within a period of six months or such other period as may be allowed by the State Government to the Central Government for its approval. Thereafter also the duty was of the applicant to submit the mining plan duly approved by the Central Government or by an officer duly appointed by the Central Government to the State Government to grant mining lease over that area. 36. It has to be mentioned that though in the concerned sections of the MMDR Act and the M.C. Rules approval of the Central Government is made mandatory before grant of mining lease by the State Government, there seems no other procedure except as provided under sub-rule (4) of rule 22 of the M.C. Rules for obtaining such approval. There is nothing on record to show that after the decision dated 26.06.2008 was communicated to it by the State Government recommending the grant of mining lease for Manganese Ore over an area of 54.80 H/R situated at Mouza Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara in its favour, the petitioner has taken the further step of submitting a mining plan to the Central Government. Even if it is presumed that since the order dated 26.06.2008 was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Central Government, no further steps were taken by the petitioner which are envisaged in sub-rule (4) Rule 22 of the M.C. Rules, the fact remains that there is no compliance of Rule 22(4) enabling the State Government to grant mining lease in favour of the present petitioner. 37. Rule-31 of the M.C. Rules relates to the execution of a Lease Deed on grant of a mining lease. It provides that whether, on an application for the grant of mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease, a Lease Deed in form-K or any form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf, and if no such Lease Deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease and in that event the application fee shall be forfeited to the State Government. 38. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 says that the date of the commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed under sub-rule (1) is registered. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no such Lease Deed executed. In the light of the provisions referred to hereinabove it will have to be determined whether the area from village Chikhla reserved by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.09.2009 for carrying out mining activities in respect of mining ore through MOIL was already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease. It is not in dispute that on the day the Central Government issued the notification dated 29.09.2009, the area reserved therein was already recommended by the State Government for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner vide order its dated 26.06.2008. However, order dated 26.06.2008 was mere a recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of lease and it was subject to the approval from the Central Government as provided under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. 39. However, order dated 26.06.2008 was mere a recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of lease and it was subject to the approval from the Central Government as provided under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. 39. Even otherwise, when the order dated 26.06.2008 was passed invoking Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 35 of the M.C. Rules, prior approval of the Central Government was mandatory as provided under Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act before granting mining lease to the petitioner. Perusal of Section 5(1) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act and sub-rule( 4) of Rule 22 of the M.C. Rules makes it clear that the area recommended in favour of the petitioner for grant of mining lease vide State Government's order dated 26.06.2008 would have become area held under mining lease as envisaged in 17A( 1A) of the MMDR Act only after the approval of the Central Government and after valid execution of the Lease Deed between the petitioner and the State Government as provided under Rule 31(2) of the M.C. Rules and not till that point of time. That stage had not been reached in the instant case and therefore the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the land notified vide Central Government notification dated 29.09.2009 was one already held under the mining lease by the petitioner. 40. Even in the order dated 26.06.2008 the words used are “I recommend to grant mining lease for Manganese Ore over an area of 54.80 H/R situated at mouza Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, District Bhandara to M/s Vidarbha Mining Association”. It therefore cannot be disputed that the order dated 26.06.2008 is a recommendation and not the grant of lease. 41. From the facts which have come on record, it is explicit that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the state Government vide order dated 26.06.2008 had not been culminated in actual grant of lease and therefore the area mentioned in the said order cannot be termed as the area already held under the mining lease. This fact gets crystallized by the later part of the State Government order which says that “all NOCs from the Central Government, State Government and local authorities be obtained by the applicant”, meaning thereby that only thereafter the recommendation will be culminated in the grant of mining lease. 42. This fact gets crystallized by the later part of the State Government order which says that “all NOCs from the Central Government, State Government and local authorities be obtained by the applicant”, meaning thereby that only thereafter the recommendation will be culminated in the grant of mining lease. 42. Thus, there being no approval from the Central Government and no Lease Deed executed between the petitioner and the Government of Maharashtra the area contemplated in the notification dated 29.09.2009 was very much available for reservation under Section 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act and the notification dated 29.09.2009 therefore cannot be held to be badinlaw. We reiterate that though the State Government had favourably considered the application of the petitioner and had made recommendation in its favour since no further steps were taken by the petitioner under Rule 22(4) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 and for want of prior approval by the State Government as provided under Section 5(1) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act it had still remained a recommendation. 43. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geomin Minerals (cited supra) relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate his argument in regard to the maintainability of the revision application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Government Tribunal, read as a whole, appears to be more supporting to the points urged by respondent No.4 that the order passed by the Central Government on 26.06.2008 was a mere recommendation and not the grant of lease. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the State Government can pass final order of granting mining lease only after the approval granted by the Central Government under Section 5(1) or Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that proviso to Section 5(1) expressly prohibits the grant of mining licence except with the previous approval of the Central Government. It is further observed that where Section 11(5) is invoked, there also prior approval of the Central Government is required. It is also said that the proviso to Section 11(5) prescribes that prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained before passing any order under the said sub-section. 44. It is further observed that where Section 11(5) is invoked, there also prior approval of the Central Government is required. It is also said that the proviso to Section 11(5) prescribes that prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained before passing any order under the said sub-section. 44. Having regard to the nature of dispute in the present case, observation made and conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 , can be profitably used. In this case Monnest Ispat, the petitioner company, was claiming some privileges on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was entered into between it and the Jharkhand Government. The State Government had recommended Monnet’s application to the Government of India for grant of mining lease of Iron ore under Section 5(1) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act. However, it was subsequently revealed that certain portion of the area recommended in favour of Monnet was reserved for public sector exploitations under two notifications issued by the Government of Bihar. The Government of Jharkhand therefore withdrew the recommendation in favour of Monnet Ispat. The Government of India accepted the request of the Jharkhand Government for withdrawal of the mining proposal made in favour of Monnet and some others. The said order was challenged by Monnet and the matter reached up to Apex Court. While deciding the said controversy the Hon’ble apex Court held that “no person has any fundamental right to claim that he should be granted mining lease or prospecting licence or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government”. It was further held by the Hon’ble apex Court that “recommendation earlier made by the Jharkhand Government in favour of Monnet was only a proposal and it was made very much clear that it was to be approved by the Central Government prior whereto it could not be construed as containing a promise”. 45. The challenge raised by the petitioner to the notification dated 29.09.2009 is about the manner of exercise of power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act and not to the availability of such power for reservation with the Central Government. 45. The challenge raised by the petitioner to the notification dated 29.09.2009 is about the manner of exercise of power under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act and not to the availability of such power for reservation with the Central Government. Even otherwise the issue of notification dated 12.10.2006 by the State Government calling upon general public to file applications for grant of mining leases over certain areas and the order passed on 26.06.2008 in favour of the petitioner do not take away the special powers of the Central Government as vested in it under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act. 46. In so far as the argument that the State Government was not consulted before issuance of the notification dated 29.09.2009 is concerned, nothing has come on record from the State Government showing that it was not consulted. There is no reason to doubt the averment in the Central Government notification dated 29.09.2009 that the same has been issued after consultation with the Government of Maharashtra when the State Government has not denied or disputed the said fact. Further, from the wordings of Section 17-A(1-A) it is clear that consultation with the State Government is only mandatory and not the concurrence. For this reason also the Central Government notification cannot be said to be vitiated. 47. It appears that the challenge of the petitioner to the Central Government notification is based on misinterpretation of the term “area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease”. In view of the discussion made hereinabove the objections raised by the petitioner are liable to fail. No fault, therefore can be found in the order passed by the Central Government Tribunal setting aside the State Government order dated 26.06.2008 on the ground that the area recommended therein stands reserved under Section 17-A(1-A) of the MMDR Act. From the material on record, it does not appear to us, as alleged by the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the Central Government Tribunal was actuated by mala fides in order to deprive the appellant of its mining rights. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the said order on this count. 48. From the material on record, it does not appear to us, as alleged by the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the Central Government Tribunal was actuated by mala fides in order to deprive the appellant of its mining rights. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the said order on this count. 48. The petitioner have also raised serious objection regarding the opinion recorded by the Central Government Tribunal in the impugned order to the effect that “even otherwise RA No.2 i.e. MOIL is a better deserving application under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act vis-a-vis the impleaded party i.e. the present petitioner. Since the order dated 26.06.2008 cannot be upheld for the reason that the area recommended therein for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner now stands reserved for carrying mining operations through MOIL vide the Central Government's notification dated 29.09.2009 issued under Section 17A(1A) of the MMDR Act and this is the main reason for which the Central Government Tribunal has set aside the State Government's order, we do not find it necessary to make any comment regarding the observation recorded by the Central Government Tribunal on suitability of MOIL over the petitioner in grant of mining lease. 49. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 26.08.2010 passed by respondent No.1 Tribunal. Direction sought by the petitioner to quash and set aside the notification dated 29.09.2009 also does not possess any merit. 50. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. 51. At this stage, Shri Kukday, the learned counsel seeks continuation of interim order for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court. Request is opposed by Shri Modak, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 as also Shri Rao, the learned AGP for respondent No.1 State Government. We have already noted that there was only a recommendation by the State Government in favour of the petitioner. In this situation, request of Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.