JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by respondent no. 4 in Revision No. 30(01)/2009-RC.I “Almora Magnesite Ltd. V/s State Govt. of Uttarakhand”. The writ petition was filed in March, 2012. 2. Briefly put, the case of the appellant/writ petitioner is as follows: Respondent no.3 submitted an application dated 28.07.1997 for prospecting license of soap stone. The State Government decided that for licenses to be granted, preference should be given to the companies and suitable action may be taken for running the licenses in joint ventures/co-promoters. Respondent no. 3 invited applications for sharing the area of prospecting license and consequently the appellant/writ petitioner submitted an application to respondent no. 3 for joining as a co-promoter. An advertisement was issued inviting applications from different organizations and the appellant/writ petitioner was selected on merits. A draft Memorandum of Understanding was given to the appellant/writ petitioner for acceptance. The first respondent wrote to the third respondent for providing a No Objection for signing the Memorandum of Understanding. The State Government issued an order and imposed certain conditions. The third respondent submitted a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding duly signed for acceptance by the State Government, but despite that, the license was not issued. The appellant/writ petitioner approached the District Magistrate for taking suitable action. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No.1417 of 2005, which was disposed of directing a decision to be taken. There is reference to another writ petition. Finally Annexure No. 2-order dated 21.12.2006 was passed rejecting the application on the ground that the third respondent is not in existence. The third respondent, however, wrote Annexure No. 3-letter to the first respondent. Finally, Annexure No. 4-letter of intent, however, came to be issued. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, this is on the basis of preferential right which the petitioner and the third respondent had acquired under Section 11(2) of the Act. A revision was filed under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by the second respondent. The Tribunal passed an order setting aside the letter of intent. That was, in turn, challenged in a writ petition and the said writ petition came to be allowed as all the counsel agreed that the matter must be sent back and the revisional order was set aside. The Tribunal passed an order setting aside the letter of intent. That was, in turn, challenged in a writ petition and the said writ petition came to be allowed as all the counsel agreed that the matter must be sent back and the revisional order was set aside. Finally, it is pursuant to the same that Annexure No. 1 order came to be passed in the revision whereunder the Revisional authority deemed it fit to set aside the letter of intent granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. It is this order, which is challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows: “Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. B.D. Upadhayay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Navin Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K.R. Gazi, Advocate for respondent no.4 Present writ petition has now become in-fructuous due to change in policy. The scope of interference in the policy matters is very limited. The writ petition is dismissed as in-fructuous. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail remedy, if any, existing under the new clause Feeling aggrieved the appellant/writ petitioner is before us. 3. We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Navin Tewari, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 besides Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1 and Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would contend that the writ petition was not in-fructuous and a letter of intent for a prospecting license was issued and, therefore, it had a right and the matter was subjudice; and the case of the appellant/writ petitioner, therefore, cannot be thrown out on the ground that it has become in-fructuous. We may notice that the matter, in our view, is squarely covered by the explicit provisions of Section 10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended in the year 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). After the amendment, Section 10A was added with effect from 12.01.2015. Section 10A reads as follows: “10A. We may notice that the matter, in our view, is squarely covered by the explicit provisions of Section 10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended in the year 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). After the amendment, Section 10A was added with effect from 12.01.2015. Section 10A reads as follows: “10A. Rights of existing concession-holders and applicants.—(1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. After the amendment, Section 10A was added with effect from 12.01.2015. Section 10A reads as follows: “10A. Rights of existing concession-holders and applicants.—(1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. (2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015— (a) applications received under section 11A of this Act; (b) where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,-- (i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government; (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; (iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government; (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under subsection (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted under clause (b) of this subsection except with the previous approval of the Central Government. 5. In this case, as far as the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned, as is clear from what we have already stated, a letter of intent had already been issued for a prospecting license. A perusal of provision 10A(1) of the Act would show that all applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Amended Act, which is 12.01.2015, would become ineligible. But the subsequent provisions have carved out certain exceptions. In Section 10A(2)(b) as far as the holder of a reconnaissance permit is concerned, he would be entitled to obtain prospecting license followed by a mining lease. As far as the holder of a prospecting license is concerned, he would be entitled to obtain a mining lease; this is in respect of that mineral in that land. This is subject to the satisfaction of State Government that the permit holder or the licensee has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents. This is apart from various other conditions, as are mentioned there under. In the case of the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant would have a letter of intent for a prospecting license even if the writ petition is allowed. The imperative terms of Section 10A, which we have noticed, permits applications, pending as on the date of amendment, to be proceeded with in the manner provided therein only. In other words, only the holder of a prospecting license would be entitled to get a mining lease. In this case, even if the appellant/writ petitioner obtains a letter of intent after the writ petition was allowed, he would not possibly comply with the condition that he has undertaken the reconnaissance operations, as provided in Section 10A(2)(b) Clause (i). Whereas, a perusal of Section 10A(2)(c) would show that in the case of a person who has a letter of intent issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease certain rights are provided in Section 10A(2)(c); that is not the position in the case of a person who would have a letter of intent for prospecting license. No legal right is preserved in favour of a person with the letter of intent for a prospecting license. In such circumstances, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition has become in-fructuous by the passage of the amendment to the Act. No legal right is preserved in favour of a person with the letter of intent for a prospecting license. In such circumstances, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the writ petition has become in-fructuous by the passage of the amendment to the Act. Consequently, the appeal being without merit shall stand dismissed without any order as to cost.