JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the notice dated 8th April, 2017 and the order dated 11th September, 2017. 2. A similar writ petition bearing No.17955/2017, M/s. Chandak Associates Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., was dismissed by this court by a detailed order on 13th October, 2017 and it applies to this case also. 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid, another writ petition bearing No.11399/2017, Shiva Corporation (India) Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan was also dismissed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur on 22nd November, 2017. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “Admittedly, the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) was issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2013. The petitioner was required to get the environmental clearance Certificate within the stipulated period under the terms and conditions of the LOI so issued and now the petitioner wants to avail further period of one year stated to be granted under the new Rule. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Chandak Associates (supra) especially when the learned Single Bench too while dismissing the writ petition took into consideration the fact that the petitioner- firm even in that case had failed to comply with the condition of the temporary working permit and the terms and conditions of the LOI. The Court further held that the cancellation of LOI in absence of mining operation by the petitioner-firm cannot be said to be illegal. Besides, the Apex (3 of 3) [CW-11399/2017] Court in the case of Naveen Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide its order dated 16.11.2017 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.34811/2013) has come down heavily on the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change about degradation of the environment in Rajasthan and being totally unconcerned by allowing the mining to continue in spite of their not obtaining environment clearance certificate. Dismissed accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, raised additional ground in the present writ petition. He submits that impugned notice has been passed under Rule 5(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, whereas, Rule 5(4) protects the petitioner thus Letter of Intent (“LOI”) should not have been cancelled. 5. I have considered the additional ground raised by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, raised additional ground in the present writ petition. He submits that impugned notice has been passed under Rule 5(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, whereas, Rule 5(4) protects the petitioner thus Letter of Intent (“LOI”) should not have been cancelled. 5. I have considered the additional ground raised by the petitioner. 6. It is a case where LOI was granted on certain conditions. The petitioner was required to comply those conditions within the period of one year. It includes submission of environmental clearance. The petitioner applied for environmental clearance, but could not obtain it. The issue aforesaid was considered by this court in the case of M/s. Chandak Associates (supra) but was not decided adverse to the petitioner herein for the reason that Apex Court permitted 82 LOI holders to excavate “Bajri” without environment clearance. The order was operative till earlier judgment in the case of M/s. Chandak Associates (supra) but has been made non-operative now by the Apex Court thus condition to get environment clearance within one year became applicable. 7. The Apex Court has shown concern to it because without environmental clearance, mining operations cannot be undertaken thus a restrained order has been passed against mining operations. The issue would be decided by the Apex Court. The fact, however, remains that one of the ground to cancel LOI is on account of non-production of environmental clearance. No order for extension of period or permission to operate without environmental clearance exists in favour of the petitioner. 8. The present writ petition has additional ground to dismiss it in the light of subsequent development in the pending SLP before the Apex Court. In absence of environmental clearance within a period of one year, protection sought by the petitioner under Rule 4(5) of the Rules cannot be given. This court cannot go into the issue as to why the Ministry of Forest and Environment kept the applications pending as for the aforesaid, the Apex Court has already caused notice to them. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed even on the additional ground of violation of the conditions of LOI as the petitioner could not produce environmental clearance within the period of one year. Hence, this order needs to be read in super-session of the earlier judgment referred above. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed even on the additional ground of violation of the conditions of LOI as the petitioner could not produce environmental clearance within the period of one year. Hence, this order needs to be read in super-session of the earlier judgment referred above. It is because of change in the circumstances in view of subsequent order of the Apex Court. The earlier judgment was favourable to the petitioner regarding environment clearance but it is taken to be adverse to them in this case and, accordingly, even the second ground for cancellation of LOI is accepted and is decided against the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.