JUDGMENT : 1. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions has been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of M/s Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13426/2020 decided on 25.06.2021) where in para Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16 & 17 it has been held as under:- "8. The said guidelines became part of the amendment made by the Central Government in the MMDR Act, 1957 w.e.f. 12.01.2015 and it was provided under the Mining Amendment Act that the composite license of mining as well as mining leases allotment shall be done exclusively by way of auction. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the guidelines show that the said provisions are prospective in nature. Thus, after 30.10.2014 the applications could have been accepted by the State Government only by notifying in official gazette. However, the said guidelines do not in any manner restrict the pending applications, which were already considered and examined and land was already earmarked. 15. This Court further accepts the contention of the petitioner-company that the period from 30.11.2016 till the date of handing over possession in terms of the present order, shall be treated as dies non and shall be excluded from the period of three years license granted under the P.L. dated 24.12.2014. The amendments made subsequently in the MMDR Act, 1957 during pendency of this writ petition would not apply to the license granted on 24.12.2014 and the four months additional time required for completing the formalities shall be granted additionally. 16. Accordingly, in view of above findings and conclusions, the order dated 15.10.2020 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are now directed to handover the possession of the area as earmarked earlier for the mining purposes in terms of license granted to the petitioner-company dated 24.12.2014. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs." 2. 16. Accordingly, in view of above findings and conclusions, the order dated 15.10.2020 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are now directed to handover the possession of the area as earmarked earlier for the mining purposes in terms of license granted to the petitioner-company dated 24.12.2014. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs." 2. The order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State of Rajasthan before the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.754/2021 and the Division Bench of this court while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 03.01.2022 observed as under:- "Much emphasis has been laid on the part of the order of the Tribunal that the case was remanded to the State Government to take appropriate action as deemed fit as per law and, therefore, in exercise of this liberty, the State Government had taken decision afresh in the matter. We are not impressed by the submission. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the order of the Tribunal having attained finality for want of any challenge, the State could not have fallen back on the same ground, which was not appreciated but repelled by the Tribunal to hold against the State in the matter of cancellation of prospecting licence of the writ petitioner. Once the Tribunal held that even amended provision of law could not be applied retrospectively as prospecting licence was granted on 24.12.2014, after the remand, it was not open for the State authorities to fall back on another circular, which was only a guideline having no statutory force to hold that the grant of prospecting licence was bad in law. In the matter of grant of prospecting licence, the law, which held the field, was one which was existing prior to amendment with effect from 12.01.2015. In the absence of there being any provision in the Act as contemplated under the guidelines, it cannot be said that the grant of prospecting licence was in violation of provisions of the then existing law. We also find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the guidelines, which were having no statutory force, were only prospective in nature. The reason assigned to again pass an order against the writ petitioner after the order passed by the Tribunal was very much available to be pressed into service by the appellant-State. We also find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the guidelines, which were having no statutory force, were only prospective in nature. The reason assigned to again pass an order against the writ petitioner after the order passed by the Tribunal was very much available to be pressed into service by the appellant-State. Order of the Tribunal and the reply, which was filed before the Tribunal, also indicate that the State sought to defend its order dated 30.11.2016 not only on the basis of subsequent amendment, but the guidelines also, which were issued prior to grant of prospecting licence. However, such objections were not appreciated, much less accepted, resulting in order against the appellants-State by the Tribunal on 19.09.2018. The only course open for the State was to challenge the order of the Tribunal, which it never challenged. The remand order was not to re-examine the correctness of the procedure for grant of prospecting licence. There is nothing in the order passed by the Tribunal on 19.09.2018 which allowed the State to re-examine the legality and validity of prospecting licence granted to the writ petitioner on the ground that the guidelines or amendments were brought changing the procedure for grant of prospecting licence. The State clearly circumvented the order passed by the Tribunal and for that reason, we do not find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge recording specific finding in this regard suffers from any apparent error or illegality, so as to warrant interference. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh AAG appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has not disputed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. In the light of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast v. State of Rajasthan (supra) which stood affirmed on appeal preferred being dismissed by the Division Bench of this court, the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 is set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.