JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The present special appeal has come to be filed against the directions dated 18.03.2021 issued by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15114/2016. 3. It appears that the impugned order came be passed on the basis of an application moved by the State for vacation of an earlier interim order dated 09.01.2017 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The said interim order dated 09.01.2017 reads as under: "By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant and execute the mining lease to the petitioner in terms of Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 5.12.14 issued in its favour for grant of mining lease of mining area 180 Hectares situated at Village-Dipas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Government communicated its approval in terms of Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1956 (for short 'the MMDR Act, 1957') vide communication dated 9.12.13 for grant of mining lease to the petitioner and the State Government decided to grant the mining lease to the petitioner on 5.12.14 by way of issuing LoI, however, on account of failure on the part of the respondents in taking further steps for necessary clearance of Department of Forest and Department of Environment, the mining lease could not be executed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the petition, on 6.1.17, 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) has already been issued by the Department of Forest in favour of the petitioner. That apart, it is submitted that the Government of India has issued a notification dated 4.1.17, clarifying that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), where the condition of obtaining environment clearance has not been complied with by the applicant on or before 11.1.17, but all other conditions specified in previous approval of Letter of Intent have been fulfilled, the applications shall be considered under the said Section and mining lease shall be granted by the concerned State Govt. in accordance with the notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and therefore, there is no reason as to why the respondents should not execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner stands saved under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Act, 1957, but if the mining lease is not allotted in its favour on or before 11.1.17, the same would automatically stands lapsed and thus, it is absolutely necessary that the respondents are directed to execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner pending fulfillment of requirement of obtaining the environment clearance. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State has no objection if the directions are issued by this Court to execute the mining lease in favour of the petitioner on fulfillment of other requirements pending issuance of Environment Clearance by the Government of India. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioner on or before 11.1.2017 pending issuance of Environment Clearance by the Government of India. The allotment of mining lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of this interim order shall not create any right in favour of the petitioner and the same shall be subject to decision of this writ petition. On the basis of execution of the mining lease in favour of the petitioner in terms of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled to commence the mining activity pending disposal of the petition. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Assistant Solicitor General seek three weeks time to file reply to the writ petition. Time prayed for is allowed. Put up after three weeks, as prayed." The directions of the learned Single Judge contained in the order dated 09.01.2017 were not complied with and instead an application was filed for recall of order dated 09.01.2017 and thereafter the said recall application was withdrawn by the State with liberty to file an application for vacation of the said interim order. It appears that accordingly subsequent thereto an application for vacation of interim order dated 09.01.2017 has been filed and this application came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.03.2021, which is impugned before us. 4. Mr. It appears that accordingly subsequent thereto an application for vacation of interim order dated 09.01.2017 has been filed and this application came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.03.2021, which is impugned before us. 4. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned AAG, on an earlier occasion when the matter was heard, submitted that the interim directions of this Court dated 09.01.2017 could not be implemented on a further ground i.e. notification of an amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDRA Act') dated 28.03.2021. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, he, in his usual fairness, submitted that the case of the respondent (writ petitioner) is not covered by the amendment carried out by the Union of India to the MMDRA Act vide its notification dated 28.03.2021. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge in his order dated 09.01.2017, while directing execution of the mining lease, had observed that the same would be subject to the result of the writ petition and other conditions stated in the said order. He therefore, submitted that if this Court is not inclined to entertain the present special appeal, this Court should take consideration the conditions imposed in the interim order dated 09.01.2017. 6. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondent (writ petitioner) drew our attention to various aspects of the matter including the circular and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India dated 20.10.2016 whereby the Secretary after consulting with the Secretary of MoEFCC and DG, Forest, MoEFCC and pursuant to a meeting held amongst them on 17.10.2016 issued the said communication dated 20.10.2016 clarifying therein that the State was directed to immediately forward all applications under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 pending with it. Mr. Venugopal further drew our attention to the sanction granted to the respondent (writ petitioner) whereby the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India granted sanction or approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 through communication dated 06.01.2017. The said communication also contains various conditions under which the sanction was accorded. Mr. Venugopal further drew our attention to the sanction granted to the respondent (writ petitioner) whereby the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India granted sanction or approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 through communication dated 06.01.2017. The said communication also contains various conditions under which the sanction was accorded. It is a fact that inspite of the respondent (writ petitioner) having received the said approval under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the State did not execute the mining lease and the private respondent, apprehending that the mining lease would not be executed by the cut-off date i.e. 11.01.2017, was compelled to approach this Court by way of writ petition seeking such a direction. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 09.01.2017 interim directions were issued by this Court to the State to execute the mining lease on or before 11.01.2017. Inspite of such directions, the mining lease was not executed and instead the State filed an application for recall of that order and the said recall application was later on withdrawn and thereafter an application for vacation of the interim order was filed. The said application was rejected by the impugned interim order dated 18.03.2021. Thus, the State has not yet executed and implemented the interim directions and ligation has been proceeding till date. 7. Mr. Venugopal also drew our attention to the clarification issued by the Ministry of Mines dated 04.01.2017 clearly stating therein that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the MMDRA Act, it is clarified that where the condition of obtaining environmental clearances has not been complied with by the applicant on or before 11.01.2017, but all other conditions specified in previous approval or the Letter of Intent have been fulfilled, the applications shall be considered under that section and mining lease shall be granted by the concerned State Governments in accordance with the notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the considered view that the interim orders passed by this Court on 09.01.2017 are absolutely in order and in consonance with law. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the considered view that the interim orders passed by this Court on 09.01.2017 are absolutely in order and in consonance with law. We find no justification in entertaining any challenge thereto and we also affirm the subsequent order dated 18.03.2021 by which the application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 09.01.2017 has come to be rejected. 9. We make it clear that the State shall execute the mining lease in favour of the private respondent (writ petitioner) within a period of 15 days from today. The mining lease shall reflect that it shall be given effect to on or before 11.01.2017 (the cut-off date). By way of mention, we may indicate here that grant of mining lease by itself will not enable the respondent (writ petitioner) to commence mining operations without complying with the conditions mentioned in the Letter of Intent as well as the conditions imposed by the Union of India in its approval and FC clearance granted to the private respondent (writ petitioner) u/Sec. 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 10. We further make it clear that grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent (writ petitioner) shall be subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition and the parties are at liberty to proceed with the matter thereafter. The conditions imposed in the interim order dated 09.01.2017 shall remain in force. We also make it clear that if the private respondent (writ petitioner) moves for clearances under other provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and other provisions of law for the purpose of commencing the mining operations, the same shall be entertained and dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law. It shall not in any manner be denied or withheld on account of pendency of writ petition. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the special appeal is dismissed.