ORDER : 1. Although the matter is listed for orders, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we take up the writ petition for hearing. 2. This is a writ petition, at the instance of an unsuccessful revisionist, that is, Sunvik Steels Private Limited, challenging the order of the revisional authority under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘the said Act’ for short), dated November 30, 2010. 3. On July 20, 2004, the State Government issued a notification under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, calling for applications from the general public for grant of mining lease. 4. The respondent No.4 applied for mining lease on September 25, 2004. On May 21, 2005, an application was filed by the writ petitioner for grant of mining lease in respect of the selfsame area. Therefore, the respondent No.4 was the prior applicant for the mining lease. 5. The State Government, on September 27, 2005, recommended grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No.4. It appears that there were correspondences between the State Government and the Central Government regarding certain issues for grant of this mining lease. Ultimately, the State Government, on March 9, 2006, accepted the recommendation of the State Government and granted prior approval under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the said Act in favour of the respondent No.4. 6. Initially, a writ petition was filed by this writ petitioner challenging the recommendation of the State Government favouring the respondent No.4. That was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of a revision before the Central Government. 7. The writ petitioner approached the revisional authority. The revisional authority dismissed the revisional application with a clear finding that the proposal of the respondent No.4 was better than the proposal of the writ petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, submits that the decision of the Chief Minister was wholly illegal inasmuch as the decision was taken without any application of mind by passing a one line order. He submits that in a similar circumstance, the Supreme Court of India set aside such order of the Chief Minister in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 1 . He submits that in a similar circumstance, the Supreme Court of India set aside such order of the Chief Minister in the case of Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 1 . Secondly, he submits that the revisional authority did not apply its mind at all and has, mechanically, dismissed the revisional application. 9. Per contra, Mr. S. Vijayshankar, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.4, submits that in view of the promulgation of the Amendment Act of 2015, his client’s application is saved and unless, immediately, the respondent No.4 is permitted to start the mining, it will be losing the time because it has mining lease for two years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 2015. 10. The scope of interference against a revisional order is very limited. The object of the writ of certiorari is to secure that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be exercised. Such power is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the inferior tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power of superintendence cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact or to upset conclusions of facts. 11. The Chief Minister made the recommendation in favour of the respondent No.4. Assuming for the sake of argument, without going into the merits, that such recommendation was mala-fide, but it is not to be forgotten that the Central Government, also, accepted such recommendation upon proper application of mind. 12. When the revisional authority held that the proposal of the respondent No.4 was better than that of the proposal of the writ petitioner, we feel that it is not open to challenge in a writ Court. 13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 14. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. No. II of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed. 15. We make no order as to costs.