JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The petitioner-Rio Tinto Minerals Development Limited is a company incorporated under the Laws of England. It has filed this application with following prayers: “(a) Admit and allow this writ application; and (b) Issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Opp. Party No.2 to grant Malangtoli lease, in terms of the tripartite agreement dated 17.06.2000 annexed as Annexure-8 and Respondent No.1’s letter bearing No. F.No. 5/58/98-M.IV and dated 20.12.2000 annexed as Annexure-10 to opposite party No. 3 in accordance with Section 10A (2) (c) of the amended MMDR Act; and (c) Issue a writ or in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Opp. Party No.1, Opp. Party No.2 and Opp. Party No.3 from taking any steps towards grant of Malangtoli lease to any other party other than Opp. Party Nos.3 or 5 for the tripartite project during the pendency of the present Writ Petition; and (d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the Government of Odisha-opposite party no.2 by its notification dated 05.06.1962 reserved the Malangtoli block in Sundergarh and Keonjhar area for exploitation in the public sector. National Mineral Development Corporation Limited-opposite party no.4, a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, applied for grant of mining lease in the Malangtoli block. Accordingly, Government of Odisha, by order dated 05.05.1977, granted mining lease in favour of opposite party no.4 in respect of 5246.03 hectares in Malangtoli subject to the conditions laid down in letter dated 16.04.1977 issued by the Government of Odisha. But opposite party no.4 could not commercially exploit the mines and did not execute the mining lease documents. Consequentially, the Government of Odisha, vide its order dated 31.01.1992, revoked the order of grant of mining lease in favour of opposite party no.4 because of failure to execute the mining lease. 2.1 The Orissa Mining Corporation-opposite party no.3 applied for grant of mining lease of iron ore over 5226.03 hectares in the Malangtoli block for a period of 30 years. 2.1 The Orissa Mining Corporation-opposite party no.3 applied for grant of mining lease of iron ore over 5226.03 hectares in the Malangtoli block for a period of 30 years. Accordingly, the Government of Odisha-opposite party no.2, vide its letter dated 24.10.1998, recommended, for grant of mining lease in the Malangtoli block in favour of Orissa Mining Corporation-opposite party no.3, to the Union of India-opposite party no.1. The recommendation for grant of Malangtoli mining lease in favour of opposite party no.3 was again reiterated by the Government of Odisha vide its letters dated 25.11.1998, 28.05.1999 and 21.07.2000. On 20.12.2000 the Union of India-opposite party no.1 approved grant of Malangtoli lease for the joint venture project between the petitioner and opposite party no.3. Needless to state that in the year 1994-95, the petitioner was successful, out of six multinational companies of international repute in the then recessionary circumstances, to be awarded the project to develop iron ore blocks in the State of Odisha. The proposed joint venture project at the time with opposite party no.3-Odisha Mining Corporation was an integrated project for mine, port and rail development (Project). Malangtoli mining project, including four mining leases, was granted to Odisha Mining Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner and the Odisha Mining Corporation-opposite party no.3 entered into a Joint Venture Agreement on 24.02.1995, which contemplated incorporation of a joint venture company and transfer of leases to the joint venture company. Pursuant to such Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), a joint venture company Rio Tinto Orissa Mining Private Limited-opposite party no.5 was incorporated. The petitioner and opposite party no.3 held 51% and 49% shares respectively in opposite party no.5. Immediately after its incorporation, opposite party no.5 conducted pre-feasibility Phase-I (PEP-I) and Pre-feasibility Phase II (a) (PFP-II (a). 2.2 In the year 1999, National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd-opposite party no.4 challenged the order of revocation dated 31.01.1992 passed by opposite party no.2 cancelling the grant of Malangtoli lease in its favour. Opposite party no.4 had challenged the said order first in the year 1995 before the Revisional Authority, Central Government, which dismissed the same on 20.08.1998. Thereafter, opposite party no.4 challenged the said revisional order dated 20.08.1998 before Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2861 of 1999 wherein a specific stand has been taken by the Government of Odisha that the project is for the benefit of nation, as well as State in particular. Thereafter, opposite party no.4 challenged the said revisional order dated 20.08.1998 before Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2861 of 1999 wherein a specific stand has been taken by the Government of Odisha that the project is for the benefit of nation, as well as State in particular. As such, the project is a significant public interest. Therefore, Writ Petition No. 2861 of 1999 was resolved by the intervention of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India pursuant to meeting held on 09.02.2000. Consequentially, opposite party no.4 withdrew the writ petition regarding Malangtoli mining lease in the Delhi High Court. 2.3 On 20.12.2000, pursuant to letter of the Government of Odisha dated 24.10.1998 for grant of Malangtoli lease to opposite party no.3, Union of India approved (under Section 5 of the previous MMDR Act) grant of Malangtoli lease for the project to Odisha Mining Corporation-opposite party no.3 upon the condition of adherence to the tripartite agreement dated 17.06.2000. Therefore, adherence to the terms of the said tripartite agreement dated 17.06.2000 is the paramount importance to the parties. In 2002, the parties had settled the Project Development Agreement and all was in readiness to take the project forward. In 2004, Odisha Mining Corporation commenced litigation by filing a petition for winding up of the joint venture company-opposite party no.5 before the Court (Company Petition No.21 of 2004). Vide order dated 20.09.2004, the Company Law Board restrained the State of Odisha and Odisha Mining Corporation for transferring or making available the mining leases at Gandhamardan, Sakradihi, Dubna and Malangtoli lease deposits and areas to any party other than opposite party no.5. In 2005 due to unauthorized use of the resources belonging to the joint venture company including by selling iron ore from the mining leases earmarked for the joint venture, the petitioner was constrained to apply to the Company Law Board to prevent opposite party no.3 from ramping up production and exhausting the project leases. On 16/17.08.2005 the petitioner as well as opposite parties no.3 and 5 agreed to resolve the matter amicably with the intervention of the State Government. Ultimately, vide notification dated 10.08.2007, a committee comprising the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Steel and Mines and Managing Director, Odisha Mining Corporation, was constituted. 2.4 In February 2009, the Board of Directors of opposite party no.3-Odisha Mining Corporation approved the Joint Venture Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. Ultimately, vide notification dated 10.08.2007, a committee comprising the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Steel and Mines and Managing Director, Odisha Mining Corporation, was constituted. 2.4 In February 2009, the Board of Directors of opposite party no.3-Odisha Mining Corporation approved the Joint Venture Agreement and Collaboration Agreement. When Odisha Mining Corporation began to renege from the Joint Venture Agreement and Collaboration Agreement, the petitioner filed Company Application No. 179 of 2013 on 03.05.2013 before the Company Law Board to bring on record the Joint Agreement and Collaboration Agreement dated 11.03.2010. Subsequently, by its order dated 22.08.2013 the Company Law Board directed the parties to report on the amicable settlement. When the matter thus stood, on 12.01.2015, the President of India promulgated the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 to amend the MMDR Act, which was passed by the Parliament on 20.03.2015. Consequentially, Section 10-A (2) (c) of the Amended MMDR Act stipulates that mining lease, which has received previous approval of Central Government, shall be within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act, i.e., 12.01.2015 subject to fulfillment of condition of previous approval. By virtue of the said provision, steps have been taken for implementation of Joint Venture Agreement and Collaboration Agreement dated 11.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a demand for justice on 26.03.2015 to the State Government and demanded for grant of Malangtoli mining lease or letter of intent to Orissa Mining Corporation under Section 10A (2)(c) of the Amended MMDR Act within a period of seven days. The same has not been responded to by the State Government, hence this application. 3. In the above factual backdrop of the case in hand, Sri Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel and Sri R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri R.R. Swain, learned counsel for opposite party no.3-Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC), on 19.07.2017, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi as the approval for grant of lease was granted in favour of the opposite party no.3-OMC and not in favour of the petitioner-company. 4. In view of the preliminary objection being raised, this Court proceeded to consider the preliminary issue raised by contesting opposite parties and to decide the same. 5. 4. In view of the preliminary objection being raised, this Court proceeded to consider the preliminary issue raised by contesting opposite parties and to decide the same. 5. Sri Robin R. David, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri F.M. Varghese and Sri S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approval, which was granted in favour of the opposite party no.3-OMC on 20.12.2000, gives right to the petitioner as the same was granted specifically with the condition that it would be subject to adherence of the terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement dated 17.06.2000 among the opposite party no. 4-NMDC, opposite party no. 3-OMC and the petitioner-company. Since by the said agreement dated 17.06.2000 a right with regard to Malangtoli Mines was granted in favour of the petitioner as well two other parties to the agreement, the petitioner would thus have locus as it would be a aggrieved party and interest of the petitioner would adversely be affected if the mining lease is not granted in favour of the OMC. In support of his submission with regard to locus of the petitioner, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, (1976) 1 SCC 671 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and others, (2002) 1 SCC 33 ; and New Horizons Limited and another v. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 SCC 478 . 6. Supporting the case of the petitioner, Shri A.N. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 has reiterated the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and relied on the communication dated 28.05.1999 made by the Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha to the Secretary in the Department of Steel and Mines, Government of India wherein the State Government has recommended for grant of approval in favour of the OMC with regard to the mining lease in question. 7. Shri Sanjit Mohanty, learned Sr. 7. Shri Sanjit Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel as well as Shri R.K. Rath, learned counsel, both appearing for the contesting opposite party no.3-OMC, have vehemently argued that the petitioner would not have any locus as it is the OMC in favour of which the approval had been granted on 20.12.2000 under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, and it was for the OMC to apply for grant of mining lease after fulfilling the conditions, and, in the absence of the OMC having made any application for grant of mining lease and till grant of such mining lease, no right would accrue in favour of the petitioner. 8. It is contended that, in effect, the petitioner is wanting enforcement of the tripartite agreement dated 17.06.2000, which prayer does not deserve to be granted under the writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the petitioner has not made any prayer against the OMC to apply for the grant of lease in its favour and, in the absence of there being any such application by the OMC, the prayer made in this petition for granting mining lease in favour of the OMC does not deserve to be granted. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-OMC has further contended that by notification dated 05.06.1962, which is still in force, the State Government had resolved the concerned Malangtoli mining area in favour of PSUs and the petitioner, which is not a PSU, cannot have any right to be granted lease in its favour either directly or indirectly. According to the learned counsel, the only condition under which the mining lease of the area reserved for the PSUs can be granted after fulfilment of the conditions of Section 17-A(2-B) of the MMDR Act (as amended by Act No.10 of 2015), which clearly specifies that the approval of the joint venture shall be selected through competitive process and that the Government company or corporation shall hold 75% of the shares in the joint venture company. It is contended that even as per the agreement dated 17.06.2000, which is to be in force, the holding of the OMC is to be 51% in the joint venture company and, as such, even the agreement dated 17.06.2000 cannot be enforced in terms of the amended MMDR Act. 10. It is contended that even as per the agreement dated 17.06.2000, which is to be in force, the holding of the OMC is to be 51% in the joint venture company and, as such, even the agreement dated 17.06.2000 cannot be enforced in terms of the amended MMDR Act. 10. Learned counsel for the OMC has submitted that if the OMC does not wish to apply for grant of lease, it cannot be compelled to do so and, in the absence of any such application made by the OMC, no lease can be granted by the State Government in favour of the OMC. It is contended that there is no right under the Act and Rules which compels the OMC to apply for grant of lease. As such, the petitioner, who is only claiming through the agreement dated 17.06.2000, would not have any locus to maintain this writ petition. It was lastly contended that since the petitioner has already approached the Company Law Board by filing Company Petition No. 59 of 2004 in which similar prayer has been made, the present writ petition would not be maintainable. 11. Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State-opposite party no.2 has, however, submitted that in case there is any violation of the agreement dated 17.06.2000, the same can be enforced against the parties to the agreement and not against the third party, which is the State of Odisha in the present case, and, as such, no mandamus for grant of mining lease in favour of the OMC deserves to be granted on the basis of the agreement dated 17.06.2000 to which the State was not a party and the petitioner was not an applicant. Shri Mishra has also contended that the ingredients for issuing writ of mandamus are not satisfied in the present case, as writ of mandamus can be issued only in favour of a party which applies for grant of lease and, in the present case, since the petitioner has not made any application for grant of lease and is only claiming on the basis of the agreement among certain parties wherein the State Government would grant lease, no such mandamus deserves to be issued against the State Government. Shri Mishra has also submitted that the right of the petitioner would only accrue after the lease is granted in favour of the OMC and not before that. Shri Mishra has also submitted that the right of the petitioner would only accrue after the lease is granted in favour of the OMC and not before that. Further, Shri Mishra has submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches, as the approval was granted in the year 2000, and the present writ petition has been filed nearly after 15 years in the year 2015. 12. Shri V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the NMDC has submitted that since NMDC had withdrawn the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and, as such, it is neither opposing nor supporting the case of the petitioner. 13. Shri D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 has submitted that in the counter affidavit the specific stand of the Central Government is that the applicant was the OMC in whose favour the approval had been granted by the Central Government and after grant of approval, the Central Government has no role to play. It is for the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter. 14. In the rejoinder, Shri David, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that filing of the present writ petition after 15 years of grant of approval was insisted because of the amended Act of 2015 by which Section 10-A was inserted and, in terms of such provision, if the mining lease in the present case was not granted within two years of coming into force of the Act No.10 of 2015, which would come into effect from 12.01.2015, the approval would lapse and the entire proceedings before the Company Law Board would also become infructuous. Shri David has further submitted that the approval was granted on 20.12.2000 by the Central Government strictly on the condition of compliance of the agreement dated 17.06.2000. Shri David has thus stated that once the approval is granted, the State Government would be obliged to issue the mining lease in favour of the OMC subject to strict adherence of the terms of the agreement dated 17.06.2000. 15. Shri David has thus stated that once the approval is granted, the State Government would be obliged to issue the mining lease in favour of the OMC subject to strict adherence of the terms of the agreement dated 17.06.2000. 15. We have heard Shri Robin R. David, learned counsel appearing along with Shri F.M. Varghese and Shri S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel for opposite party no.1-Union of India, Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for State-opposite party no.2, Shri Sanjit Mohanty and Shri R.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for opposite party no.3-OMC along with Shri R.R. Swain, learned counsel, Shri V. Narsingh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4-NMDC and Shri A.N. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.5-Rio Tinto Odisha Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and perused the record. 16. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed at this stage. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. For ready reference, the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules framed thereunder are reproduced below: “Section 10-A. Right of existing concession holders and applicants. (1). xxx xxx xxx (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) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (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 sub-section except with the previous approval of the Central Government.” 5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. 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 sub-section except with the previous approval of the Central Government.” 5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. (1) A State Government shall not grant a [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] to any person unless such person? (a) is an Indian national, or company as defined in [clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)]; and (b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Explanation -For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be an Indian national,? (a) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, only if all the members of the firm or members of the association are citizens of India; and (b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India.” 19. The relevant extracts of the agreement dated 17.06.2000 and the approval order dated 20.12.2000 respectively are reproduced below: Agreement dated 17.06.2000: “6. This agreement will come into effect only after- (i) The approval of Board of Directors of NMDC, OMC and RTMD. (ii) The approval of Ministry of Steel, Government of India and Government of Orissa. NMDC will immediately thereafter withdraw the writ petition No.2861 of 1999 unconditionally, filed in the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi and give up its claim whatsoever over the mining lease of Malangtoli for all time to come and OMC will be granted with the Mining Lease on the Malangtoli Iron Ore Deposit.” Approval order dated 20.12.2000 “………..I am directed to refer to your letter No. III (A) SM-42/98-2002/SM dated 24.10.98 on the above mentioned subject and to convey the approval of the Central Govt. under Section 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with relaxation of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act ad Rule 59(1) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 to the grant of mining lease for iron ore over an area of 4051.67 hects. in Naibaga & Jampai (Malangtoli of Keonjhar Distt. under Section 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with relaxation of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act ad Rule 59(1) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 to the grant of mining lease for iron ore over an area of 4051.67 hects. in Naibaga & Jampai (Malangtoli of Keonjhar Distt. And 1045.17 hects in village Mithirda of Distt Sundargarh (Orissa) in favour of M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., for a period of 30 (thirty) years subject to adherence to the terms and conditions of Tripartite [M/s. NMDC, M/s. OMC & M/s. RTMD] agreement dated 17 June, 2000. 2. Before allowing grant of ML, the State Govt. may kindly ensure the compliance of the amended provisions of the Act and Rules, and other applicable Acts and Rules including Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment Notification dated 27.1.1994 as issued and amended by MOEF……….” 20. In De Smith’s Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Fourth Edition), page-416, locus standi has been explained as a place of standing; a right of appearance in a Court of justice; right to bring an action and to be heard. In Garner and Jones in their Administrative Law (Sixth Edition), page-175, locus standi is understood to mean legal capacity to challenge an act on decision. Locus standi is a threshold question in the simplest or clearest cases of lack of standing. The following observations of the learned authors are extracted below: “Thus, locus standi is threshold question finally determinable at the ‘leave to apply’ stage, only in the simplest or clearest cases of lack of standing. In most cases the standing of the applicant in relation to the matter in question might better be regarded as continuing a ground upon which the Court while hearing, or having heard, the substance of the case might exercise its discretion to refuse the relief claimed.” 21. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra), on which reliance has been placed, the apex Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 held as follows: “37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold. 38. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved'. In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved. In view of the judgment of the apex Court, the petitioner neither be construed to be a ‘person aggrieved’ nor ‘stranger’ nor busybody or meddlesome interloper. 22. So far as the judgments in Ghulam Qadir and New Horizons Limited (supra) are concerned, both the cases have no application to the present context, as the same have been decided on their own facts and circumstances, therefore, the same are distinguishable. 23. The reliance has been placed on Bhusan Power and Steel Limited v. State of Odisha, (2017) 2 SCC 125 , wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19 the purpose of amendment to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 has been considered and there is no dispute to such reasons enunciated by the apex Court. 24. 23. The reliance has been placed on Bhusan Power and Steel Limited v. State of Odisha, (2017) 2 SCC 125 , wherein in paragraphs 18 and 19 the purpose of amendment to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 has been considered and there is no dispute to such reasons enunciated by the apex Court. 24. Having regard to the facts as narrated above, principles of locus standi as enunciated above and examining the judgment cited and discussed above, we are of the clear opinion that the petitioner is, in fact, praying for grant of mining lease in favour of opposite party no.3-OMC even though the OMC has not applied for grant of mining lease. It is, in fact, the prayer made by the petitioner on behalf of the OMC, when the OMC itself does not wish to be granted such mining lease. In fact, by requiring the opposite parties to comply with the terms of the approval of order dated 20.12.2000, the petitioner is actually wanting enforcement of the agreement dated 17.06.2000 and praying for a direction to the State Government, which was not even a party to the agreement. 25. Section 10 of the MMDR Act provides for filing of an application for grant of mining lease in respect of any land in which minerals vest in the Government in the prescribed form and to be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Thus, it is clear that the application is to be filed by the party in whose favour the permission has been accorded by the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act and, in the absence of such an application being filed in the prescribed form accompanied with the prescribed fee by the applicant, the lease cannot be granted by the State Government. There is no prayer in the writ petition for any direction to the OMC to make an application within the prescribed time for grant of mining lease. The only prayer is to direct the State Government to grant mining lease in favour of the OMC and it is not understood by the Court as to how the State Government can grant mining lease in favour of a party which has not even applied for grant of such lease. 26. The only prayer is to direct the State Government to grant mining lease in favour of the OMC and it is not understood by the Court as to how the State Government can grant mining lease in favour of a party which has not even applied for grant of such lease. 26. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the OMC that the writ petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain this petition, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of locus.