JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Writ petition filed by the respondent for a direction to the State and its authorities to issue a Grant Order in respect of 624 hectares area for mining purposes in terms of Letter of Intent dated 23.08.2007 and further to direct the Mines Department to sign and enter into Mines Development and Production Agreement as per the format laid down in Rule 8(3)(a) and 8(3)(b) of the Mining Concessions Rules, 2016 and thereafter execution of mining lease agreement, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction that delay in execution of the agreement has to be ignored for the lapsed period. 3. Concededly the writ-petitioner was issued a Letter of Intent on 23.08.2007 and prior thereto environmental clearances were obtained on 14.09.2006. 4. The progressive mine closure plan was submitted and the NOC from the Forest Department had also been issued. 5. Denial justified by the State on the ground that 2.5 hectares of land was charagah land has been noted and dealt with by the learned Single Judge holding that mining plan excluded said 2.5 hectares of land and additionally the State Government had compensated 2.5 hectares land of charagah land by allocating non-charagah land as charagah land. 6. On the issue of sunset clause contained in Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 which envisaged a lapse of pending applications, the learned Single Judge has relied upon a decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 126/2017, Wonder Cement Limited v. State of Rajasthan , as per which if there was a delay occasioned on account of procedural steps not being resulting in the necessary permissions being granted, said time had to be ignored. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to distinguish the decision in Wonder Cements case which squarely would be applicable to the case of the respondent as well. 8. It also has to be noted that in Wonder Cements case the charagah land was much more; being 46.26 hectares. Since mining plan in said area had excluded the same, even in respect to the issue of charagah land the ratio would bind the appellants. 9. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.