JUDGMENT 1. Though an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed, in view of the office note, we find that appeal is within limitation. Therefore the application for condonation of delay is disposed off as superfluous. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The appeal of the State against the order of learned Single Judge mainly raises an issue of concern that the order of the learned Single Judge allows the writ petitioner/respondent to carry out mining activity over an area of 939.462 hectares which includes Charagah land but unless the mandate of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') is complied with, the writ petitioner could not claim grant of mining lease as a matter of right. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the caveator/writ petitioner, we find that the State's apprehension is not well founded in view of what has been categorically stated by learned Single Judge, forming basis for issuance of directions in favour of the writ petitioner, as incorporated in Para 19 of its order which is reproduced hereinbelow:- '19. In the present case, this Court finds that apart from 'charagah land' falling in some areas, there are four quarry leases of area of 50.038 hectares which is falling within the demarcated area as notified by the State Government of 989.50 hectares. Thus, this Court holds that area available for mining plan to be submitted by the petitioner-company shall be only for 939.462 hectares and accordingly, the respondents would be required to issue a mining lease for an area of 939.462 hectares alone treating the LoI to be reduced accordingly. The petitioner company shall also give an undertaking of not carrying out any mining activity in the 'charagah land' which may fall in the mining area.' 5. The writ petitioner's undertaking that it shall not carry out any mining activity in the Charagah land which may fall in the mining area, clearly shows that the writ petitioner is praying for grant of mining lease only in respect of those area, which otherwise did not include any Charagah land. If that be so, we are unable to accept the submission of learned State Counsel that direction issued by learned Single Judge is in violation of the statutory mandate under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955. 6. If that be so, we are unable to accept the submission of learned State Counsel that direction issued by learned Single Judge is in violation of the statutory mandate under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955. 6. Placing on record the reiterated undertaking and statement made in terms of what has been stated before learned Single Judge and recorded in Para 19 of the order of learned Single Judge, this appeal is disposed off.