ORDER : I.A. No. 6193 of 2014 This application has been filed seeking amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition for incorporating the following prayers: 1. (iii) A further writ/order/direction particularly a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding upon the respondents to issue a formal order in terms of Section 8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as the State Government has already formed an opinion that it is in the interest of mineral development to renew the mining lease of the petitioner for Dhobil Mining Lease in Manoharpur Ore Mines, Chiria, West Singhbum; (iv) A further writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding upon the respondents to execute the renewed mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner for Dhobil Mining Lease in Manoharpur Mines, Chiria, West Singhbhum; (v) A further writ/order/Direction for quashing the orders dated 03.09.2014 and 04.09.2014 issued by the State of Jharkhand on the basis of amendment in Rule 24(A)6 of MCR, 1960 whereby mining operations were stopped in the lease(s) where on the basis of deemed extension of leases under second and subsequent renewals, mining was being done”. A further prayer for amending the interim prayer portion of the writ petition has been made which reads as under: “and an interim Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding upon the respondents to forthwith issue an formal order in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and further be pleased to stay the operation of the orders dated 03.09.2014 and 04.09.2014.” 2. Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner-SAIL, submits that though the State Government has already issued order under Section 8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 vide letter dated 22.10.2014, a fact which has been admitted in paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit dated 26.11.2014, still to avoid any technical objection raised by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has filed the present application seeking incorporation of the aforesaid prayers in the writ petition. It is further submitted that in so far as, amendment in interim prayer is concerned, the petitioner has already made a prayer for permitting the petitioner-SAIL to continue mining operations in Dhobil Mining Lease of Manoharpur Ore Mines. 3. In opposition, Mr. It is further submitted that in so far as, amendment in interim prayer is concerned, the petitioner has already made a prayer for permitting the petitioner-SAIL to continue mining operations in Dhobil Mining Lease of Manoharpur Ore Mines. 3. In opposition, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Jharkhand raises objection with respect to incorporation of prayer no. 1. (v) in I.A. No. 6193 of 2014 and submits that in the entire writ petition, no foundational facts have been pleaded by the petitioner for a relief as sought to be incorporated vide prayer no. 1.(v). It is further submitted that the amendment in the interim relief portion also cannot be allowed in so far as, it relates to a prayer seeking stay of operation of orders dated 03.09.2014 and 04.09.2014. 4. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India refers to paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 12 of the writ petition which read as under: “9. That the petitioner states that the Respondent No. 1 has sought the views of IBM in terms of Rule 24A(3) of Mineral concessions rules vide letter dated 10.09.2014 and IBM after considering the case of the petitioner in its correct perspective has vide letter dated 17.10.2014 given its favourable recommendation inter alia as follows: “It would be in the interest of the mineral development to grant second renewal of mining lease for Iron and Manganese Ore Budhaburu (Dhobil) Ankua R.F. over an area of 512.95 ha in village-dhobil, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand State of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) under Rule 24A(3) of Mineral concession Rules, 1960. 10. That the petitioner states that the State of Jharkhand vide letter No. 1063 dated 03.09.2014 issued by Dy. Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Jharkhand issued directions that pursuant to issuance of communication dated 18.07.2014 by Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India amending the Rule 24A(6) of MCR, 1960, mining activities in deemed extensions in the second & subsequent renewals is stopped with immediate effect. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Office of the DMO, Chaibasa vide its letter dated 04.09.2014 directed the petitioner to stop its mining operations. 12. of India amending the Rule 24A(6) of MCR, 1960, mining activities in deemed extensions in the second & subsequent renewals is stopped with immediate effect. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Office of the DMO, Chaibasa vide its letter dated 04.09.2014 directed the petitioner to stop its mining operations. 12. That the petitioner states that before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner has obtained the following statutory clearances from the concerned authorities: (i) 24.01.2012 – Grant of Environmental Clearance (ii) 21.10.1998 – Grant of Forest Clearance (iii) 28.10.1998 – Approval of Minding Plan. 5. It is submitted that in reply to I.A. No. 6193 of 2014, no objection worth mentioning has been raised by the respondent-State of Jharkhand to the prayer for amendment in the writ petition. Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India refers to paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit dated 04.12.2014 filed in opposition to I.A. No. 6193 of 2014 which is quoted below: “18. That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the aforesaid writ petition as well as the Interlocutory Application is liable to be dismissed.” 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. 7. It is well settled that an application seeking amendment is dealt with liberally and the Court can grant permission seeking amendment even at the stage of hearing. In the present case, the matter is still at preliminary stage and no interim order has been passed by this Court. As noticed above, sufficient foundational facts have been pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India has submitted that the present amendment application has been filed by the petitioner by way of abundant precaution only. In earlier Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 5368 of 2014, an order has already been passed by this Court on 13.11.2014 granting permission to the petitioner's company to commence mining operations, subject to filing an undertaking. I find that since the matter is at the admission stage only, if the permission is granted to the petitioner to incorporate the prayers mentioned in I.A. No. 6193 of 2014, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent-State of Jharkhand. I find that since the matter is at the admission stage only, if the permission is granted to the petitioner to incorporate the prayers mentioned in I.A. No. 6193 of 2014, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent-State of Jharkhand. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has admitted that it has already issued an order under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that I.A. No. 6193 of 2014 deserves to be allowed. 8. Ordered accordingly. I.A. No. 6319 of 2014 9. This application has been filed seeking impleadment of District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum as a party respondent no. 4 in the writ petition. 10. In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 6193 of 2014, impleadment of District Mining Officer, Chaibasa is only a formal prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly, I.A. No. 6319 of 2014 is allowed. I.A. No. 6641 of 2014 11. This application has been filed for tagging W.P.(C) No. 5642 of 2014 with W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 or in the alternative, to adjourn the case awaiting decision in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014. 12. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the applicant-State of Jharkhand submits that identical issues are pending for consideration before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and since W.P. (C) No. 5640 of 2014 has been transferred to the Hon'ble Division Bench, the present writ petition also may be transferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench. It is further submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is identical to the issues involved in W.P.(C) No. 5640 of 2014 in as much as, letter dated 22.10.2014 containing similar conditions has been impugned in the present writ petition also. It is further submitted that in so far as, interim prayer seeking permission to commence the mining operation is concerned, the order passed by this Court has been challenged before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 and in such view of the matter, hearing of the present writ petition is to be adjourned. 13. Opposing the prayer in I.A. No. 6641 of 2014, Mr. 13. Opposing the prayer in I.A. No. 6641 of 2014, Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that in so far as, the challenge to letter dated 22.10.2014 containing various conditions is concerned, the prayer made by the applicant may be allowed and this writ petition may await the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in so far as, sustainability of the conditions imposed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand vide letter dated 22.10.2014 is concerned. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that in so far as, prayer seeking permission to commence mining operation is concerned, that may be heard by this Court in as much as, the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5368 of 2014 dated 13.11.2014, has not been modified or set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Vide order dated 11.12.2014 in I.A. No. 6222 of 2014, a prayer seeking stay of order dated 13.11.2014 has been rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench and though, Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, no interim order/orders has been granted in favour of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and thus, there is no legal hurdle in hearing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief. Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India refers to paragraph nos. 15 & 16 in order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in I.A. No. 6222 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 and submits that in fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench has opined that, prima facie the State of Jharkhand has no objection if mining activities are continued by the writ petitioner, subject to certain conditions. It is thus, submitted that in so far as, the conditions contained in letter dated 22.10.2014 is concerned, this Court may not adjudicate the issue since identical issue is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench however, the prayer for grant of interim relief should be heard by this Court. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. 15. Paragraph nos. 15 & 16 in order dated 11.12.2014 passed in I. A. No. 6222 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 are extracted below: “15. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. 15. Paragraph nos. 15 & 16 in order dated 11.12.2014 passed in I. A. No. 6222 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 are extracted below: “15. The learned Single Judge has already stated in the impugned judgment/order that the writ petitioner shall give an undertaking to the State of Jharkhand that it would abide by the decision, rendered in W.P. (C) No. 5640 of 2014. Thus, in our view all care has been taken by the learned Single Judge of the conditions attached with the renewal of mining lease and that pursuant to the said direction the writ petitioner has also given an undertaking. It is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned, managed and controlled by Central Government and not a fly by night company, being in existence since more than half a century. 16. Looking to the conditional renewal order of mining lease, prima facie, it appears to us that the State of Jharkhand has no objection, if the mining activities are being carried out by the writ petitioner, but, it must be subject to certain conditions and the main condition is about certain amount, to be paid by the writ petitioner-company to the State of Jharkhand. As stated above, these conditions have been challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5640 of 2014. Thus, prima facie, the dispute revolves around the conditions attached with the renewal of lease and out of these conditions, one is about the payment of money by the writ petitioner-company to the State of Jharkhand. However, we, in the present appeal, are concerned with the mining activities, to be carried out by the writ petitioner.” 16. A bare reading of order passed in I.A. No. 6222 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 487 of 2014 discloses that the Hon'ble Division Bench has formed a prima facie opinion that subject to imposition of certain conditions, the respondent State of Jharkhand has no objection if the petitioner-company continues its mining operation. As rightly contended by Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has already formed an opinion and consequently, took a decision in terms of Section 8(3) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. As rightly contended by Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has already formed an opinion and consequently, took a decision in terms of Section 8(3) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. In so far as, the sustainability of conditions imposed vide letter dated 22.10.2014 is concerned, this writ petition must await a final decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 17. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6641 of 2014 is partly allowed in so far as, unconditional acceptance of the conditions contained in letter dated 22.10.2014, is concerned. W.P. (C) No. 5642 of 2014 18. Heard on the question of grant of interim order. 19. Post the matter under the heading “For Orders” on 13.01.2014.