JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.07.2001 issued by the Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest (Central) Eastern Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar, Ministry of Forest & Environment, Government of India, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease on forest land has been rejected as per the report submitted by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The petitioner also prayed for quashing the letter dated 24.02.2000 issued by the Deputy Advisor, Environment, Government of Bihar whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease of forest land was forwarded to respondents with adverse remarks on the basis of which the petitioner's application was rejected. The petitioner is also seeking direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to objectively consider the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease on forest land. 4. The counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments has pointed out para 17 of the writ petition by mentioning that in the vicinity of the petitioner's proposed lease area, mining lease has been granted to one M/s. Keswel (Prop. Mrs. Meera) by the Central Government on the recommendation made by the State Government which amounts to discrimination against the petitioner. The petitioner points out that in the counter-affidavit dated 31.03.2004, filed by the respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7, the paragraph no. 17 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents and accordingly, he should be given equal treatment as that of M/s. Keswel (Prop. Mrs. Meera). 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7 wherein the said respondents have mentioned at para 10 that the concerned department of the respondents have constructed one bio-diversity theme park in the land involved in this case and at present the land in question is in possession of the State Government and belongs to the forest department being a part of the reserve forest. 6. 6. Considering the facts of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the following facts and reasons : (a) The only argument which has been advanced by the counsel for the writ petitioner is that one M/s. Keswel has been granted lease in the vicinity of the proposed lease area by the Central Government on the recommendation made by the State Government. (b) The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how the grant of lease to M/s. Keswel which has been granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the State Government is discriminatory so far as the petitioner is concerned. This court is of the view that the petitioner cannot allege discrimination vis-a-vis M/s. Keswel merely because in the vicinity of the proposed leased area of the petitioner , lease has been granted to another person. Moreover it is the case of the petitioner himself that positive recommendations were made by the state government so far as M/s. Keswel is concerned but in e instant case there is no such recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Otherwise also the records of M/s. Keswel and its recommentations are not before the court so as to enable the court to appreciate as to the corcumstances under which the lease was granted to M/s. Keswel. Accordingly no case of discrimination has been made out by the petitioner and hence the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected. (c) It is my considered view that no grounds of discrimination has been made out with the petitioner. (d) Moreover from the perusal of the another counter-affidavit dated 20.08.2008, it appears that the respondent-State has taken a specific stand that at the proposed lease area of the petitioner bio-diversity theme park has been constructed. In such circumstances, there is no question of grant of lease to the petitioner for the same area. 7. Under the facts of the case, I find no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. I.A NO 2639/2007 is also dismissed.