ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This writ petition has been assigned to this Court by order dated 11.12.2014, passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Division Bench. 2. In this writ petition letter dated 22.10.2014, issued by the respondent-State is under challenge, whereby the respondent-State is seeking consent of this petitioner to impose the conditions for renewal of lease, as the application for renewal of lease is pending with the respondent-State with effect from 8.2.2008. This is an application for second renewal, because initially the lease period was granted for 30 years on 22.2.1949, and this lease period expired on in the year 1979. Again an application was preferred for renewal of the lease period, which was granted in the year 1987 with retrospective effect, i.e. from 1979. Thus, further period of 30 years, the lease was renewed, which was to be over on 21.2.2009, and therefore, within time limit of one year, before expiry of the said lease, on 8.2.2008 an application for renewal of lease was preferred and no such decision has been taken by the respondent-State and this letter dated 22.10.2014 has been issued for seeking consent to the petitioner-company to impose conditions for renewal of lease. 3. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that after the aforesaid letter has been written now Section 8-A has been inserted under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1957" for the sake of brevity). Similarly, the Mineral, (Mining by Government Company) Rules, 2015 has also been enacted in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the Act, 1957. These rules have been enacted by the Central Government to be read with Section 8-A(8) of the Act, 1957 and also looking to the latest decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014 [Ed.- : Reported in 2016(3) JLJR (SC)325.] by judgment dated 4.4.2016. 4. It appears that the respondent-State will have to take a decision for extension of lease. It further appears from the letter dated 22.10.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-9 to this petition, the State of Jharkhand wants consent of the lessee for extension of the lease. 4. It appears that the respondent-State will have to take a decision for extension of lease. It further appears from the letter dated 22.10.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-9 to this petition, the State of Jharkhand wants consent of the lessee for extension of the lease. It further appears from the facts of the case that the State is seeking selling price of the mines & mineral excavated from the year 2009 onwards in view of sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Act, 1957 by way of penalty, but looking to the letter dated 22.10.2014, State has no courage to pass such order at all for extension of the lease and half heartedly letter appears to have been written to the lessee as nothing advance looking process is existing under the Act, 1957 for extension of the lease. That conditions of the renewal of the lease will be proved first by the lessee. There is nothing like advance looking procedure under the Act, 1957 for seeking consent for the conditions first from the lessee for the renewal of the lease. If the State of Jharkhand wants to impose any final condition for renewal of the lease such order they could have passed. 5. It further appears from the facts of the case that despite the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5368 of 2014 [Reported in 2015(1) JLJR 161 .], no such decision has ever been taken place at the behest of the State under Section 8(3) of the Act. 6. This novice method has been followed by the State of Jharkhand to seek consent of the lessee for the condition to be imposed at the time of the removal of the lease is de hors the provision of the Act, 1957. The lessee-petitioner must not give any consent, but it does not mean that the State of Jharkhand has no power to impose the conditions for renewal/extension of the same, 7. Thus, in view of insertion of new Section 8-A and also in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014 [Ed.- : Reported in 2016(3) JLJR (SC)325.] (especially paragraph no. Thus, in view of insertion of new Section 8-A and also in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014 [Ed.- : Reported in 2016(3) JLJR (SC)325.] (especially paragraph no. 32 thereof) and also looking to the Mineral (Mining by Government Company) Rules, 2015 enacted by the Central Government, we, hereby, quash and set aside the communication made by the respondent-State dated 22.10.2014, which is at Annexure-9 of the memo of this writ petition reserving the liberty with the respondent-State to take a decision on the application preferred by this petitioner-company for renewal/extension of the lease period. 8. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of.