JUDGMENT : 2. At this juncture, it is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the respondents have no hesitation to conduct Unmanned Aerial survey by using the Drone Technology as and when required. In fact, the State Government had already introduced a more compatible technology than the Drone Survey to obtain particulars directly from the satellite, as the discretion is vested with the Government in respect of usage of advanced technology, being developed by the Indian Bureau of Mines, namely, Mining Tenement System (MTS). 3. Mr.V.B.R.Menon, the petitioner in-person has submitted that the use of other technologies other than Drone would be helpful to the Government only to detect and report the illegal mining activities, whereas, the Drone Technology is exclusively designed to calculate and assess the volume and quantity of minerals being quarried from the leasehold areas. He has further submitted that introduction of the proposed Mining Surveillance System along with incorporation of Drone Technology would only be a remedial process for determination of quantity of minerals, being quarried from the mines, so as to monitor and prevent the large scale illegal mining activities in Tamil Nadu through various means. The petitioner went on to add the features of Drone Technology, stating that Drones can be used to monitor illegal mining activities, check for activity at night and to track illegal truck movements. He has further added that Drones can also monitor whether reclamation has been done as committed, when a mine is closed and calculate the extent of the green cover. 4. A reading of the order dated 07.02.2017, especially Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, reveals that the said order was passed after accepting the contention of the petitioner that the Drone Technology is a must. Therefore, the Respondents cannot now be permitted to take a different stand to contend that the proposed Mining Tenement System (MTS) in the place of Drone Technology would be introduced for survey of the illegal mining operations. The contention of the Respondents that discretion is left with the Government to use either MTS or Drone Technology, as and when required, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 5. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to implement the Drone Technology alone in order to determine the exact quantum of minerals quarried from the leasehold sites by way of detection through satellite. 5. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to implement the Drone Technology alone in order to determine the exact quantum of minerals quarried from the leasehold sites by way of detection through satellite. It is apposite to mention here that since the writ petition had already been disposed of and the matter is specifically posted for reporting compliance, no further argument can be advanced touching upon the merits of the matter. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no further orders/directions need to be passed at this stage, as the Respondents have clearly stated that they are prepared to use the Drone Technology for survey of illegal mining. Though both MTS and Drone Technology shall operate simultaneously, in that process, the implementation of Drone Technology cannot be dispensed with at any point of time. 6. It goes without saying that in the event of the Government not implementing the Drone technology, as stated before this Court, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to law.