ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. The present Writ Petition (PIL) has been filed with the following prayers: “12(A) THIS HON’BLE Court MAY BE PLEASED TO hold that the mining lease order dated 26/07/2013 (Annexure- “L”) and the mining Lease Deed/Agreement 09/01/2015 executed surreptitiously 3 days before comng into force of the Amended MMRD Act on 12/01/2015 is illegal and quash and set aside the same. (B) THIS HON’BLE Court MAY BE PLEASED TO direct that the Respondent No. 6 – Gujarat Siddhi Cement Company Limited is not legally entitled to undertake mining activities in furtherance to the order dated 26/07/2013 (Annexure- “L”) and in pursuance to Lease Deed/Agreement dated 09/014/2015 since within 31 years from the order dated 05/12/1985 (Annexure - “E”) and order dated 30/12/1983 (Annexure - “C”), no Lease Deed/Agreement was executed within 20 years of the lease period and the same is executed surreptitiously 3 days before coming into force of the Amended MMRD Act on 12/01/2015 is illegal and quash and set aside the same. (C) Pending admission, herein and final disposal of this petition THIS HON’BLE Court MAY BE PLEASED TO restrain and inject the Respondents from acting in furtherance to the order dated 27/06/2013 and Lease Deed/Agreement dated 09/01/2015 by the Respondent No. 6 – Gujarat Siddhi Cement Company Limited and thereby execution, implementation and operation of both. i.e., order dated 26/07/2013 and Lease Deed/Agreement dated 09/01/2015 may be restrained and injected.” 2. The facts giving rise to the Public Interest Litigation are as under: 2.1 An environmental activist – the President of the Registered Non-Government Organisation “Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee, Gujarat State” has filed this petition challenging the grant of mining lease to the Respondent No.6-Gujarat Siddhi Cement Company Limited. According to the petitioner, the mining lease is in contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the MMRD Act”). The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the Petition and argued by the counsel Mr. MTM Hakim is that the mining lease is for gaucher lands. 2.2 The case is based on the fact that the Respondent No.6 Company applied for a mining lease of limestone and/or marl minerals on 10/1/1983 in the lands of Village Vavdi and Morsa Taluka – Veraval, District Junagadh. MTM Hakim is that the mining lease is for gaucher lands. 2.2 The case is based on the fact that the Respondent No.6 Company applied for a mining lease of limestone and/or marl minerals on 10/1/1983 in the lands of Village Vavdi and Morsa Taluka – Veraval, District Junagadh. In the opinion of the Mamlatdar, such lands were private lands and gaucher lands and therefore cannot be given on mining lease. It is the petitioner’s case that ignoring such an opinion, by an order dated 30/12/1983 mining lease came to be granted by the Department of Industries, Mines and Power Department. The order dated 30/12/1983 imposed several conditions including a condition that the lessee shall establish a Cement Plant near Morasa within two years of the date of the order failing which the order shall be cancelled. Effective steps needed to be taken before the execution of the mining lease deed which included purchase of land for construction of factory and approval from Air and pollution Control Board. 2.3 According to the petitioner, though the company did not execute the mining lease deed or take any effective steps, pursuant to a request made by the Company by an application dated 21/10/1985, the State by an order dated 5/121985 extended the time limit for execution of the lease deed unto 31/3/1986. A second extension was sought for by a letter dated 20/11/1986 which was granted by an order dated 6/1/1987 extending the time of execution of the lease deed unto 31/3/1987. 2.4 According to the petitioner, though no further extension orders were passed after the order dated 6/1/1987 and though the cement plant was not established as per condition no.4 of the order, on a clarification sought after eight years by the Geologist on 4/5/2012 and the Collector dated 15/5/2012, it became evident that the Government passed orders on 26/7/2013, pursuant to the Geologist’s communication dated 6/09/2012 extending the period of time for execution of the lease deed. However, according to the petitioner, no lease deed was executed till 9/1/2015 and it was only on 9/1/2015 that such a Lease Deed was executed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the action of extensions of time to execute the Lease Deed on several counts. (A) The extension is a surreptitious exercise to overcome the rigours of amendment to the MMRD Act brought in force with effect from 12/1/2015. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the action of extensions of time to execute the Lease Deed on several counts. (A) The extension is a surreptitious exercise to overcome the rigours of amendment to the MMRD Act brought in force with effect from 12/1/2015. To overcome the rigours of more stringent provisions, just three days prior to such an amendment, permission is granted. (B) In view of the amendment, the grant of mining lease is only after prior approval of the Union Of India and only by auction and as no further extension could have been granted before the new regime was in place, the lease deed was executed on 9/1/2015. (C) According to the petitioner, even after the execution of the lease deed, no mining activity has been carried out. (D) That there has been a change in the mining area. The original area was 118.01 hectares, whereas as per the lease agreement it is 93.1407 hectares. (E) Possession of around 14 hectares of land of Morasa and 35 hectares of land in village Vavdi has been granted only on 29/6/2016 yet no mining activity is being carried on or dead rent has been paid. (F) These irregularities have been pointed out by the residents of the village but to no avail. (G) In accordance with the provisions of Rule 31 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the lease deed ought to have been executed within 90 days but the same was not done. The time to execute the Lease Deed was extended from time to time, thrice even after the lease period of 20 years and expired. The extension is granted 26 years after the first extension is granted and almost after 30 years from the letter dated 30/12/1983. (H) The Environmental Clearance certificate was granted on 29/7/2006 as per the approved mining plan dated 27/10/1995 and such events have taken place subsequent to 1987. The revival or review of extension of mining lease after 26 years is grossly illegal hence the prayers as referred to here in above. 4. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned AGP has appeared for the Government and has invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Geologist, Gir-Somnath dated 29th January 2019. The revival or review of extension of mining lease after 26 years is grossly illegal hence the prayers as referred to here in above. 4. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned AGP has appeared for the Government and has invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Geologist, Gir-Somnath dated 29th January 2019. As made out from the affidavit so filed, it is the case of the authorities that there is no illegality or impropriety in the grant of the mining lease dated 9/1/2015. It is the their case that the Company applied for a mining lease on 10.1.1983 and the Government by an order dated 30.12.1983 granted the mining lease for the area ad-measuring 158.82 hectares. Since the Company was aggrieved by the order, it filed a Revision which was allowed by an order dated 23,7.1985 whereby additional lands were granted. 4.1 Ms. Thakore further submitted that in order to start the mining activities the fresh order imposed a condition for divesting of land from Gauchar head to Government waste land in order to get the lease deed executed. The allegation therefore that Gauchar land is being allowed is incorrect as the Collector passed an order in 1989 divesting gaucher land to government waste land. Extension applications were allowed on the basis of sound reasons. 4.2 Ms. Thakore submitted that the lease deed could not be executed as the Ministry of Forest and Environment issued a notification dated 27.1.1994 whereby environmental clearance was made mandatory for grant of any new lease. Only after the mining plan was sanctioned and the environmental clearance was received that the Lease Deed could be executed. The Environmental Clearance was received on 11.08.2008. 4.3 Ms. Thakore submitted that the order to extend the time limit to execute the lease deed was made on 26.07.2013 of 118.01 hectares and the lease deed came to be executed for an area of 93.14.07 hectares after verification of DILR. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the execution was done with a view to beat the amendment deadline of 12.1.2015. Since the grant order was already made in 1983, there was no question of the applicability of the amended provisions of the MMRD Act. After the possession of the land was handed over in June 2016 by the Mamlatdar that the mining activity could commence. 4.4 Ms. Since the grant order was already made in 1983, there was no question of the applicability of the amended provisions of the MMRD Act. After the possession of the land was handed over in June 2016 by the Mamlatdar that the mining activity could commence. 4.4 Ms. Thakore submitted that the contention with regard to interpretation of Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules is incorrect. In view of the facts, the power to extend the lease was exercised bonafide. 5. Mr Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate for respondent no. 6 has taken us through the reply filed on behalf of the company. Our attention is drawn to the chronology of dates and events at Page 267 of the reply. It will be in the fitness of things to set out the chronology of dates which reads as under: Date Particulars 02/08/80 Grant of Prospecting License to Cement Corporation of Gujarat Limited 10/01/83 Submission of application for mining lease 30.12.1983 Grant of mining lease for approximately158.82 hectares 01/01/84 Application for addition of two survey nos. 56 and 57 of village Vavdi to mining lease grant order 05/03/84 Section 4 Notification issued in Official Gazette for land acquisition of private lands 23.07.1985 Order in Revision before Central Government whereby issue remanded for fresh consideration of State Government for grant of additional area for mining 21.10.1985 Application for extension of time for execution of minign lease 05/12/85 Order granting mining lease for 173.45 hectares. Such order requries application to Collector for such lands which are under Gauchar head and also completion of acquisition proceedings. 20/05/1986 Section 6 Notification issued under Land Acquisition Act. 16/11/86 Section 9 hearing under land Acquisition Act 20/11/1986 Application for extension of time for execution of lease deed 06/01/87 Order granting extension of time under Rule 31 of Mineral Concession Rules 07/04/89 Collector passes order divesting Survey No. 671 of Village Vavdi from Gauchar head to Government Waste head. 1989 One Special Civil Application No. 5317 of 1989 is filed before the Hon’ble High Court by one ex-Sarpanch of Vavdi village claiming improper divesting of Survey No. 671 22.02.1991 Section 11 award under Land Acquisition Act issued. 1989 One Special Civil Application No. 5317 of 1989 is filed before the Hon’ble High Court by one ex-Sarpanch of Vavdi village claiming improper divesting of Survey No. 671 22.02.1991 Section 11 award under Land Acquisition Act issued. Amount of compensation is set at Rs.9,89,920/- 13/11/1991 Rs.9,89,920/- deposited before Special Land Acquisition Officer by Respondent Company 24/02/1992 Notice under Section 12(2) of the Acquisition Act is issued upon land owners for accepting amount of compensation 1992 The management of Cement Corporation of Gujarat Limited was handed over to Mehta Group in 1992 by the Government of Gujarat along with all liabilities considering loss of profitability of Cement Corporation of Gujarat Limited 1993 Considering repeated losses, the Respondent Company was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act 30/09/1993 Special Civil Application No. 5317 of 1989 challenging divesting of Survey No. 671 of Village Vavdi is dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. No appeal filed 08/10/93 Respondent Company seeks extension of time for execution of mining lease since Section 16 procedure under Acquisition Act is not completed and completion of procedure of payment of compensation under Acquisition Act is also pending 19/10/1993 Revenue entries are made showing possession of Respondent Company on private lands acquired 27/01/1994 Vide Notification, Ministry of Environment and Forest of Union of India, issued one EIA Notification making environmental clearance compulsory for any new project for grant of mining lease. Therefore, accordingly it become necessary to submit mining plan and environmental impact assessment report prior to obtaining environment clearance and entering into mining lease 27/08/1994 Preparation of mine plan job awarded to one M/s. GMICS, Ahmedabad 30/11/1996 Since majority of landowners under award no. Therefore, accordingly it become necessary to submit mining plan and environmental impact assessment report prior to obtaining environment clearance and entering into mining lease 27/08/1994 Preparation of mine plan job awarded to one M/s. GMICS, Ahmedabad 30/11/1996 Since majority of landowners under award no. 2/84 did not accept amount of compensation, the same was transferred to the treasury as per the instructions issued by the Revenue Department of Respondent State Government 21/10/97 Work order issued to NCBM, New Delhi for preparation of EIA/EMP as per MOEF requirement 11/02/98 Letter written by Respondent Company to Respondent No. 2 State for extension of time limit for entering into mining lease due to the notification requiring environmental clearances which was now under process for preparing as per MOEF guidelines 26/2/98 Letter written by answering Respondent to Respondent State for extension of time limit 02/04/98 Letter received from Respondent State Government regarding clarification for extension of time limit for execution of Vavdi-Morasa lease 16/4/98 Respondent Company replied to letter dated 02.04.1998 point out pending environmental clearance and pending Section 16 procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore requesting for extension of time limit to enter into mining lease 11/08/98 Reminder by Respondent Company for extension of time limit to enter into mining lease since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 12/08/98 Reminder letter from IMD Department of Respondent State Government regarding extension of time for execution of Vavdi-Morasa lease since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 23/12/98 Respondent Company replied to letter dated 12.08.1998 point out pending environmental clearance and pending Section 16 procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore requesting for extension of time limit to enter into mining lease 19/01/99 Reminder for extension of time limit by Respondent Company to enter into mining lease since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 09/02/99 Received letter from Respondent State Government asking justification for extension of time limit vide their earlier letter dated 16.04.1998 and 12.08.1998 17/02/99 Reminder for extension of time limit by Respondent Company to enter into mining lease and clarification qua communications of State Government since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 2000 10 landowners whose land were acquired by way of land acquisition proceedings filed civil suit before learned Civil Court Regular Civil Suit No. 721 of 2000 to 730 of 2000 02/06/00 Amount of compensation deposited by Respondent Company forwarded by Special LAO, Junagadh to Mamlatdar, Sutarpada on formation of Sutarpada taluka 02/06/00 Letter received from respondent State Government regarding clarification of extension of time for execution of Vavdi-Morasa lease since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 28/06/2000 Reminder for extension of time by Respondent Company to enter into mining lease since process for acquiring Environmental Clearance was ongoing 15/07/2000 Lettte from respondent State Government regarding submission of Environment Clearance Certificate 19/07/2000 Public hearing conducted on 19/07/2000 to complete procedure for obtaining environmental clearance 19/02/2001 No Objection Certificate received from Gujarat Pollution Control Board 01/03/01 Letter written to Respondent State Government for extension of time limit for execution submitting the NOC issued by GPCB Gandhinagar 28/03/2001 Letter No. GSCL/MNS/C-1/01/13881 dated 28/03/01 submitting the NOC received from GPCB Gandhinagar 18/04/2001 Respondent Company received letter from Respondent State Government asking the site clearance certificate from MoEF, New Delhi 26/11/2001 Application submitted to MoEf for site and environment clearance 29/11/2001 BIFR declares failure of scheme of revival and directs for change of management in Respondent Company 19/02/2002 Learned Appellate Authority for Industrial Fianncial and Reconstruction (“AAIFR”) stays order of BIFR and seeks implementation of a modified rehabilitation scheme 03/09/02 Plan sent to Forest Department of the State Government for authentication 21/11/2002 AAIFR sanctions modified rehabilitation scheme 25/08/2005 Exh. 5 Application dismissed in Regular Civil Suit No. 721 of 2000 to 730 of 2000 filed by land losers under Land Acquisition Act 17/04/2006 Applied for extension of time limit for lease execution to Respondent State Government 03/05/06 Respondent Company submits revised modified rehabilitation scheme to the BIFR 23/05/2006 Received authenticated plan from Forest Department, State of Guajrat 07/06/06 The authentication plan received from Respondent State Government submitted to MoEF, of the Central Government 02/04/08 Resolution regarding necessity of NOC of Central Government 04/09/08 Applied for lease execution on 04/09/2008 to the Section Officer of IMD, Gandhinagar 17.09.2009 Letter for disbursement of compensation amount to land losers written by Respondent Company to the Mamlatdar Shri – Sutrapada 25/09/2009 Respondent Company writes to Mamlatdar Veraval to inform Mamlatdar Shri Sutarpada for taking further necessary for acquisition of possession 27/10/2009 Letter by respondent Company to Special Land Acquisition Officer, Junagadh for taking over all physical possession of acquired private land as provided for under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 31/03/2010 BIFR recommends discharge of respondent Company from purview of SICA Act. As part of Rehabilitation Scheme, mining lease of Vavdi Morasa is recommended to be entered into as early as possible with the State Government, which is a party before the BIFR 24/04/2010 Received No Objection Certificate qua Consent to establish from GPCB 08/01/13 Final Orders are passed in modified draft Rehabilitation Scheme, whereby sanction of grant of mining lease and handing over of the possession of Vavdi Morasa is considered part of revival of the Company b y the BIFR. Respondent State Government is represented before the BIFR and is part of such proceedings 26/07/2013 Conditional order received from IMD through order number MCR-1598-477-Chh1 for Tiem extension for entering into mining deed for limestone mining lease granted vide order of total 428.16 acre (118.01 hect.) 2013 By this time, the Respondent Company had exhausted substantial alternative mines available and was purchasing limestone from local suppliers from the open market and was operating because of the same at substantial losses 27/09/2013 The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is notified 02/01/14 Submitted replies raised by IMD Department of Respondent State Government along with Mining Plan and DILR map on 07/02/2014 15/02/2014 Commissioner of Geology and Mining Office Junagadh of Respondent State Government asked for updated DILR map from the Respondent Company 28/02/2014 Certified copy of DILR map submitted 05/03/14 Letter from Collector to DILR regarding measurement of lease area 19/03/2014 Sr. Geologist of the Respondent State Government asked for re-measurement of land and modified DILR map in single compiled map 29/10/2014 Special LAO, Junagadh informs the Respondent Company that Mamlatdar, Sutarpada has been directed to disburse amount of compensation to land losers under the Land Acquisition Act and complete procedure for acquisition of possession of land in question 20/11/2014 Verification of actual area by DILR and report to Collector regarding the area 28/11/2014 DILR approved map received and submitted to geologist office for verification by Respondent State Government. Final area verified as approximately 93 hectares rather than 118 hectares since the interregnum balance land was either developed or transferred by the Respondent State Government 06/01/15 Stamp duty paid on lease deed and no dues certificate received 09/01/15 Lease deed executed 17/01/2015 Letter from respondent company to the Collector with copy to IMD & CGM, Gandhinagar regarding lease deed executed for an area of 93.1407 hect out of 118.01 hect & also inform that mining will b started after amendment in ML order from IMD, Gandhinagar 25/02/2015 Collector given a letter No. GJ/ML/519/621 dated 25.02.2015 to Commissioner, Geology & mining to amendment in area and issue order regarding change of area from 118.01 hectare to 93.1407 hectare 30/04/2015 Letter from Respondent Company to CGM, Gandhinagar for issue of the revised ML order for an reduce area 28/05/2015 Consent to operate received from GPCB 23/06/2015 Letter from Respondent Company to Mamlatdar, Sutrapada for possession of Mining Lease land 25/06/2015 Letter from respondent company to Collector, Gir Somnath with a copy to the respondent company demanding M.L. Order and other lease extension relation documents 06/01/15 Regular Civil Suit No. 721 to 730 of 2015 which were filed challenging land acquisition were withdrawn 04/07/15 Letter from respondent company to Mamlatdar, Sutrapada for possession of Mining Lease land 09/07/15 Letter from respondent company to Mamlatdar, Sutrapada for possession of Mining Lease land 15/07/2015 Letter from the respondent company for issue of the revised ML order for an reduced are and grant of permission for commencement of the mining 16/07/2015 Letter from respondent company to Collector, Gir Somnath for possession of Mining Lease land 22/07/2015 Mining plan approved for an area of 93.1407 Hect from IBM 12/08/52015 Letter from respondent company to Collector, Gir Somnath for possession of Mining Lease land 07/10/15 All land losers whose lands were acquired under the land Acquisition Act in the year 1992 but possession was not taken over approached the Hon’ble High Court claiming lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the acquisition act by way of Special Civil Application No. 17656 of 2015 and allied matters 07/04/16 Hon’ble High Court directs for maintenance of status quo qua private lands 06/05/16 Letter from respondent company to Collector, Gir Somnath for possession of Mining Lease land. Copy of the letter also sent to Dy. Copy of the letter also sent to Dy. Collector, Veraval & Mamlatdar Sutrapada 29/06/2016 Physical possession of Government Land handed over to respondent company 07/01/16 Regular Civil Suit No. 88 of 2016 is filed before learned Civil Court Veraval in representative capacity by all villagers seeking cancellation of grant of possession of Government land on the basis of that the same has been used since the long span of time for houses, etc. of the villagers and the same should not be handed over to the respondent company. No stay is granted till date 05/10/16 Revised ML Order for an area of 93.1407 hect. Received from IMD Gandhinagar 19/10/2016 Complaint is made to Central Government for cancellation of Environmental Clearance granted to Respondent Company. By this time, due to mining on the lands, the dependency on local purchase of limestone is reduced greatly and the company reduces its loss 01/01/17 Present Public Interest Litigation is filed May to August 2017 Complaints are filed by present petitioner and once local supplier alleging wrongdoing in mining activities which allegations are found to be incorrect on extensive investigation by Respondent State Government. By this time, almost 90% of limestone supply of respondent company is from internal mining activities and the respondent company makes minor profits for the first time in a long span to time 12/10/17 C.A. 14125 of 2017 is filed in PIL 25 of 2017 seeking stay on mining activities 5.1 Mr. Joshi, relying on the timeline reproduced here in above submitted as under: (A) Apart from the maintainability of the PIL, he submitted that the company which was erstwhile Cement Corporation of Gujarat Limited had applied for a mining license in the year 1980. On revision on the grant of licence, which was allowed, the order was granted afresh on 5.12.1985. (B) Since some lands were Gauchar lands, the Company approached the Collector for diverting the lands and it was in 1989 that the Collector passed an order diverting the lands. (C) Parts of the parcels of land were of private and Santhani ownership and proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was initiated in the year 1984. Awards were passed for acquiring 16.93 acres and 23.47 acres and after acquisition, revenue entries were passed on 19.10.1993. (C) Parts of the parcels of land were of private and Santhani ownership and proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was initiated in the year 1984. Awards were passed for acquiring 16.93 acres and 23.47 acres and after acquisition, revenue entries were passed on 19.10.1993. Compensation amounts were deposited but since the acquisition proceedings were subject matter of civil suits by the owners and since petitions were filed namely Special Civil Application No. 6282/2016 for a prayer to treat the acquisition as lapsed under the Act of 2013 and which are pending, the possession of the lands was not taken over by the Government for more than two decades though the amount of compensation was deposited within six months of the award. (D) In the interregnum, the Company was before the BIFR and only on 8.1.2013 were the proceedings disposed of. The Board had deemed it fit to direct the State Government to permit initiation of mining activity as an essential condition of revival of the company. (E) The environmental clearance came on 11.08.2008. (F) The Company has carried out multiple acts of corporate social responsibility including maintainance of basic infrastructure etc. (G) The company could start the mining activity after the grant of possession of the Vavdi and Morasa lands on 29.6.2016 by the Government. 6. Taking into consideration these facts on hand, what appears clear and evident from reading of the affidavits of the competent authorities and the company and looking at the detailed time-line reproduced hereinabove is that the apprehension of the petitioner that the process of law has been subverted to grant extensions of time to execute the mining lease by a long period and therefore special favour has been shown to the Respondent Company is misconceived. We say so based on the explanations having been rendered by the Geologist’s affidavit coupled with the affidavit and surrejoinder filed on behalf of the company. (I) The company which was erstwhile known as the Cement Corporation Of Gujarat applied for a prospecting license on 2.08.1980. (II) The lease order was made on 30/12/1983. On a revision application filed for addition of Survey Numbers 56 and 57 of village Vavadi, the Central Government allowed the revision. (III) In the interregnum, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of Section 4 notification on 18.09.1984 for acquisition of private lands. (II) The lease order was made on 30/12/1983. On a revision application filed for addition of Survey Numbers 56 and 57 of village Vavadi, the Central Government allowed the revision. (III) In the interregnum, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of Section 4 notification on 18.09.1984 for acquisition of private lands. (IV) On applications made for extension of time, an order was passed on 6/1/1987 granting extension of time under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules. (V) The Collector, on a request made by the Company, passed an order divesting Survey number 671 of Village Vavdi from Gauchar head to Government Waste Land. The divesting of such land was a subject matter of challenge in a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 30.09.1993. (VI) By virtue of a notification of the Central Government dated 27.1.1994, Environmental Clearance became mandatory. The land owners did not accept compensation therefore the same was transferred to the treasury in 1996. (VII) The company had to apply for extension pending consideration of guidelines being framed by the Ministry of Environment on the basis of the notification. (VIII) On extension applications so filed, the State in the year 1999 by a letter dated 9.2.1999 asked for justification for extension. The State asked for submission for certificate of environmental clearance. Public hearing on EC was completed on 19.7.2000 and NOC was received in 2001 from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. (IX) BIFR Authentication received on 7.6.2006 was submitted to the Ministry Of Environment and Forests which ultimately issued a NOC on 11.08.2008. Final clearance was received from GPCB in 2010. (X) After disbursal of amounts of compensation in the year 2014, the DILR carried out verification and approved the map on 28.11.2014. (XI) Suits filed challenging acquisition were withdrawn in June 2015. (XII) Possession of lands were thereafter handed over on 29.06.2016. 7. All these dates and events as unfolded and narrated hereinabove, when taken into consideration with the detailed time-line referred to hereinabove, would suggest that the basic apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. (XI) Suits filed challenging acquisition were withdrawn in June 2015. (XII) Possession of lands were thereafter handed over on 29.06.2016. 7. All these dates and events as unfolded and narrated hereinabove, when taken into consideration with the detailed time-line referred to hereinabove, would suggest that the basic apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. But for the rigmarole that the Company had to undergo in terms of proceedings under the BIFR, Land Acquisition proceedings, challenge to the divesting of lands by the villagers, suits by the owners of land which were subsequently withdrawn, petition by the villagers, mandatory sanction of the environmental clearances and other issues which were beyond the control of the Company, the Company had no other option but to make repeated applications for extension of time to execute the mining lease. Only when it became clear that it was possible to demarcate and use a particular parcel of land that the lease deed was executed. Possession was handed over by the Government only on 29.06.2016. 8. All these factors do not suggest that there was in any manner an attempt to execute the lease deed to overcome the rigours of the amendments which fell in place 3 days after the lease deed was executed on 9/1/2015. Moreover, it cannot be said that the operation of Rule 31 casts an absolute obligation to terminate the order on failure to execute the lease. 8.1 Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 reads as under: 31. Lease to be executed within six months. – (1) Where, on an application for the grant of a mining lease, an order has been made for the grant of such lease, a lease deed in Form K or in a form as near thereto as circumstances of each case may require, shall be executed within six months of the order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf, and if no such lease deed is executed within the said period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease and in that event the application fee shall be forfeited to the State Government. [(2) The date of the commencement of the period for which a mining lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed under sub-rule (1) is registered.] 8.2 Reading of the Rule indicates that it is open for the State Government to extend the time limit especially when the lessee is not at a fault. From the facts as suggesting from the time line so extensively reproduced hereinabove, it cannot be said that the discretion so exercised by the State Government in extending the period of execution can be faulted. 9. We see no subversion of law in the present petition and therefore the Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.