JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the communication dated 6.10.15 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, whereby the petitioner is directed not to proceed with the mining operation till his proposal for diversion of the forest land to be submitted in the prescribed proforma as prescribed vide circular dated 17.7.2015 issued by the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, is approved by the competent authority. 2. The petitioner was granted a mining lease no. 68/72 by the State Government for mineral, soap stone and marble for a period of 20 years from 30.12.74 to 29.12.94. After grant of mining lease, the Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. As per the mandate of the provisions, the petitioner was required to obtain diversion of the forest land for the purpose of mining. The petitioner applied for diversion to the Environment & Forest Department, Government of India. The diversion applied for was granted for the forest land measuring 6 hectare, on the conditions specified, vide order dated 15.3.2000. The period of diversion of the forest land was made co-terminus with the renewal period of the lease as admissible under relevant mining rules applicable. The mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was further renewed vide order dated 24.7.2000 for a period of 20 years and accordingly, the mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 19.8.2000 for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 30.12.94. The petitioner applied for further renewal one year prior to scheduled expiry of the mining lease on 27.10.13. During the pendency of the renewal application, vide communication dated 25.9.14 issued by the Forest Department followed by yet another communication dated 29.12.14 issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Salumber, the petitioner was directed to stop mining activity. On the basis of the directions issued by the Forest Department as aforesaid, vide communication dated 8.1.15, the Department of Mines directed the petitioner to stop the mining activity forthwith on the ground that the mining lease executed in its favour stands expired on 29.12.14. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.2213/15 before this court questioning the legality of action of the respondents in restraining it from undertaking the mining operation in the mining area covered by the lease executed in its favour. 4. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.2213/15 before this court questioning the legality of action of the respondents in restraining it from undertaking the mining operation in the mining area covered by the lease executed in its favour. 4. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner made an application stating that in view of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 ('the Ordinance, 2015'), promulgated by the Central Government on 12.1.15 and the order dated 1.4.15 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, pursuant thereto, the mining lease granted in its favour would have tenure of not less than 50 years and the period of validity of approval accorded shall also stand extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease and accordingly, prayed that the writ petition preferred deserves to be allowed. 5. In response to the application preferred by the petitioner as aforesaid, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the State, taking the stand that keeping in view the provisions of Ordinance, 2015 and the order dated 1.4.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, the period of mining lease of the petitioner stands extended by the Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan upto 29.12.2024 i.e. for a period of 50 years from original grant. 6. Taking into consideration the categorical stand of the State, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by this court as having become infructuous. 7. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the period of the mining lease granted in its favour stands extended upto 29.12.24 and since the period of validity of approval accorded under Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, is deemed to have extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the petitioner cannot be restrained from undertaking the mining operation yet, by way of impugned communication, the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, has restrained the petitioner from undertaking the mining operation till proposal for diversion of forest land to be submitted in the prescribed proforma is approved by the competent authority. 8. 8. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that the period of mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner having come to an end on 29.12.14, the same cannot be deemed to have been extended till 29.12.24 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim extension of the approval for diversion of forest land co-terminus with the period of the lease. It is submitted that vide circular dated 17.7.15, the Forest Department has laid down procedure to be adopted for extension of approval of diversion of forest land and the said circular does not impose any additional conditions. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to seek extension of the approval and not to undertake mining till the approval is granted, is ex facie without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner stands renewed till 29.12.24 and by virtue of circular dated 1.4.15 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the validity of approval accorded for diversion of the forest land is deemed to have been extended upto a period co-terminus with the period of mining lease and thus, the Department of Forest, which has nothing to do with the grant of renewal, cannot impose a condition upon the petitioner to seek the extension of approval for diversion of forest land and restrain it from undertaking the mining operation till the approval is granted. 10. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the petition, submitted that the lease of the petitioner having expired on 29.12.14, the validity period thereof, cannot be deemed to have been extended and therefore, the approval for diversion of the forest land for mining operation, cannot be deemed to have been extended for the period co-terminus with the period of mining lease. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Amendment Act"), which has come into force w.e.f. 12.1.15, the mining leases granted in respect of the minerals specified, prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, would also have tenure of not less than 50 years. 12. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Amendment Act"), which has come into force w.e.f. 12.1.15, the mining leases granted in respect of the minerals specified, prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, would also have tenure of not less than 50 years. Indisputably, pursuant to the amendment introduced as aforesaid, the period of the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner stands extended upto 29.12.24 by the competent authority of Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan and thus, the Department of Forest, yet another wing of the Government of Rajasthan, has no jurisdiction whatsoever to question the legality of the extension granted, moreso when the Amendment Act specifically provides that the leases granted prior to promulgation would also have tenure of 50 years. 13. It is not disputed before this court that by virtue of circular dated 1.4.15, the period of validity of approval for diversion of forest land accorded under Forest Conservation Act is also deemed to have been extended upto the period co-terminus with the period of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of MMRDR Act, 1957, as amended from time to time, subject to the following conditions: "(i) The State Government shall, within a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter, realize from the user agency, net Present Value (NPV) of the forest land for which period of validity of approval under the FC Act has been extended, in case the same has not already been realised, and transfer the same to the ad-hoc compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA). (ii) In case NPV of forest land for which period of validity of approval under the FC Act has been extended by this letter has not already been realised and the State Government fails to realize the same from the user agency within a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter, approval accorded under the FC Act for such forest land shall be kept in abeyance, and shall be deemed to have been kept in abeyance, till such time, the NPV of such forest land is realised by the State Government. (iii) Provisions of this letter, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to forest land falling in a mining lease for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined or lapsed before the issue of this letter." 14. In this view of the matter, in terms of the conditions imposed as aforesaid, the State Government is under an obligation to realise from the petitioner Net Present Value (NPV) of the forest land, for which period of validity of approval under FC Act has been extended, in case the same has not been realised and transfer the same to adhoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) and for this purpose, the information sought by the State Government in the prescribed proforma cannot be faulted with, but then, for this reason, the petitioner cannot be restrained from undertaking the mining operation in accordance with law. As a matter of fact, since the validity of the approval for diversion of the forest land granted in favour of the petitioner is deemed to have been extended upto the period co-terminus with the period of mining lease, the circular dated 17.7.15 so far as it provides for making an application for extension of period of validity, does not apply to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to undertake the mining in accordance with law, in the mining area covered by the mining lease granted in its favour, which stands renewed till 29.12.24 and the period of validity of approval for diversion of forest land in respect thereof, stands extended upto the period co-terminus with the period of lease. However, the petitioner shall furnish all necessary information to the Department of Forest as prescribed for the purpose of determination of NPV or for any other purpose, as provided for under the law. No order as to costs.