JUDGMENT : 1. In these writ petitions, a common prayer for a direction upon the respondent-State to issue Transit Challans to the petitioners has been made. Initially, another prayer seeking a direction upon the Revisional Authority to hear and dispose of the interim applications filed by the petitioners in their Revision Applications was also made, however, after the Revisional Authority has passed final orders dated 28.05.2018/07.06.2018, this prayer has been rendered infructuous. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 534 of 2018, Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Krishanu Ray, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner. In W.P. (C) No. 790 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 798 of 2018, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appears for the petitioners. The respondent-State is represented through Mr. Ajit Kumar, the leaned Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned AC to AG. 3. Contention raised by Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, the learned Senior counsel is that after the Revisional Authority has quashed the demand notice dated 12.09.2017 vide its order dated 28.05.2018 there is no demand for compensation under section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, for non-payment of which the respondent-State can withhold Transit Challans to the petitioner-Shah Brothers. Continuing in the same vein, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner-M/s Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar (in the other two writ petitions) referring to the decision in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1 (paragraph no. 10) submits that effect of the revisional orders dated 28.05.2018 and 07.06.2018 is that today there is no demand in existence, and therefore status-quo ante when Transit Challans were issued to the petitioners must be restored. The learned counsel further submits that the demand notices issued to the petitioners suffer from patent factual errors, inasmuch as, in view of the judgment in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 590 (paragraph no. 85) the petitioners are entitled for deduction of approximate cost of production from the impugned demands which have been issued by the respondent-State. 85) the petitioners are entitled for deduction of approximate cost of production from the impugned demands which have been issued by the respondent-State. Another plea raised by the petitioners is that orders of the Revisional Authority by which the impugned demand notices have been quashed are passed in exercise of statutory powers conferred upon the Revisional Authority, which cannot be over-ruled or modified by an executive exercise (3-Men Committee). Besides the above, it is also contended that hearing by the 3-Men Committee constituted by an order dated 11.01.2018 is not, infact, compliance of the principles of natural justice for several other factual aspects need to be considered by the respondent-State while quantifying the alleged compensation under section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. 4. The learned Advocate-General has reiterated the stand taken by the respondent-State in the affidavits filed in the present proceeding. On the plea of parity on the basis of payment of Rs. 11 Crores by the petitioner-Shah Brothers, the learned Advocate-General submits that the petitioner is not identically situated to the other mining lease holders, a reference to which has been given in paragraph no. 13 of the first counter-affidavit and the other two writ petitioners (M/s Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar) have not made any payment against the demand notices both dated 07.09.2017. 5. First, on the prayer for a direction to the respondent-State to issue Transit Challans to the petitioners it is pertinent to record that in order dated 17.04.2018 this Court has already noticed rampant violation of the mandatory environmental stipulation by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 534 of 2018. On grant of environmental clearance under E.I.A. Notification, 1994 the petitioner-Shah Brothers has pleaded that only when a notification was issued in September, 2006 the issue who are required to take environmental clearance (EC) could be clarified. But, the fact remains that this petitioner was issued environmental clearance for One Lakh MT per annum only on 23.01.2007 and, thus, it stands admitted that prior to 23.01.2007 it has continued mining without valid EC. Even after grant of EC, it has continued mining in excess to the permissible quantity. The petitioners in other two writ petitions [W.P. (C) No. 790 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 798 of 2018] have also continued mining without EC and/or other statutory clearances. Even after grant of EC, it has continued mining in excess to the permissible quantity. The petitioners in other two writ petitions [W.P. (C) No. 790 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 798 of 2018] have also continued mining without EC and/or other statutory clearances. It also needs to be recorded that the demand notices issued to the petitioners pertain to illegal mining without EC or in excess to the quantity permitted under EC and assessment of compensation on account of violation of other mandatory stipulations has still not been done; it shall be reflected in the report of the 3-Men Committee. A mining lease permits a lease holder only to mine minerals, but not in violation of the statutory laws or in contravention of the stipulations in the mining lease. Plainly speaking, violation of the mandatory provisions under the environmental laws would also be a breach of the statutory conditions in the mining lease. May be today there is no demand notice against the petitioners-the demand notices issued by the respondent- State have been quashed by the Revisional Authority not on merits but on the ground of breach of the rules of natural justice - violation of the mandatory stipulations by the petitioners writ large and, thus, their liability to pay compensation cannot be denied. Concern for environment is not the concern of the citizenry only, it is a matter for concern for the Courts also. And, this concern of the Supreme Court is reflected in the opening paragraphs of the judgment in Goa Foundation vs. Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 218 , which are quoted below: “1. Rapacious and rampant exploitation of our natural resources is the hallmark of our iron ore mining sector coupled with a total lack of concern for the environment and the health and well-being of the denizens in the vicinity of the mines. The sole motive of mining leaseholders seems to be to make profits (no matter how) and the attitude seems to be that if the rule of law is required to be put on the backburner, so be it. Unfortunately, the State is unable to firmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with a view to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long-term impact of this indifference. Unfortunately, the State is unable to firmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with a view to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long-term impact of this indifference. Another excuse generally put forth by the State is that of development, conveniently forgetting that development must be sustainable and equitable development and not otherwise. 2. Effective implementation and in some instances circumvention of the mining and environment related laws is a tragedy in itself. Laxity and sheer apathy to the rule of law gives mining leaseholders a field day, being the primary beneficiaries, with the State being left with some crumbs in the form of royalty. For the State to generate adequate revenue through the mining sector and yet have sustainable and equitable development, the implementation machinery needs a tremendous amount of strengthening while the law enforcement machinery needs strict vigilance. Unless the two marry, we will continue to be mute witnesses to the plunder of our natural resources and left wondering how to retrieve an irretrievable situation. 6. The above-quoted observation of the Supreme Court answers the submission that all that the State wants is money and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent-State to consider issuing Transit Challans, on part payment of the amount reflected in the demand notices. It is not that the State’s only concern is money, its avowed stand is that it stands to protect the environment. It is pleaded that following the judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 499 , demand notices dated 07.09.2017 and 12.09.2017 have been issued to the petitioners. 7. The interim orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases do not offer any respite to the petitioners. In the first place that was the interim stage and after the parties exchanged affidavits after a full-fledged hearing finally the writ petitions were referred, after formulating substantial questions of law, to a Division Bench of this Court. No such questions have been raised by these petitioners. Secondly, those interim orders were passed by this Court, primarily and predominantly on the ground that the applicants in W.P. (C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases are captive mining lease-holders. The petitioners are traders and have not been granted mining lease for captive usage. No such questions have been raised by these petitioners. Secondly, those interim orders were passed by this Court, primarily and predominantly on the ground that the applicants in W.P. (C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases are captive mining lease-holders. The petitioners are traders and have not been granted mining lease for captive usage. The stand taken by the respondent-State, that besides the applicants in W.P. (C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases, Steel Authority of India Limited and M/s Usha Martin, Transit Challans have been issued to only those mining lease holders who have paid the demand in full, has not been disputed by the petitioners. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel, however, submits that the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 does not make a distinction between a captive mining lease-holder and a non-captive mining lease-holder. In my opinion, once it is found that the petitioners are not identically situated to M/s Hindalco, SAIL etc. a definite finding on this issue is not required. 8. On breach of the rules of natural justice, apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. The matter before the 3-Men Committee pertains to quantification of the compensation which the petitioners are liable to pay for the violations as alleged by the respondent-State. Even if the State chooses not to challenge the revisional orders dated 28.05.2018/ 07.06.2018 though it is stated in the affidavit dated 25.06.2018 that file for taking a decision for challenging the revisional orders dated 28.05.2018/07.06.2018 has been initiated-all that the petitioners are entitled to is grant of hearing. The learned Advocate- General states that hearing before the 3-Men Committee has already been concluded, and in the end based upon the report of the 3-Men Committee a show-cause notice shall be issued to the petitioners. 9. Finally, all I need to record is that, may be the petitioners have made out an arguable case but then an arguable case is not necessarily a good case for exercise of discretionary powers by the Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and the judgments in “Common Cause” and “Goa Foundation” I am not inclined to issue a direction to the respondent-State to issue Transit Challans to the petitioners and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.