JUDGMENT : Per Deepak Roshan, J. 1) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon concerned respondents to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner as per Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "MMDR Amendment Act, 2015" for mining of Bauxite under Village Dokapat, Thana No. 98, District Gumla, having an area of 180.34 acres. 2) Before coming to the issue which has arisen for determination by this Court, it would be convenient to state the facts in brief. The petitioner, being an individual, applied for grant of mining lease of Bauxite under Village Dokapat, Thana No. 98, District Gumla, having an area of 180.34 acres on 03.05.1986. Pursuant to said application, Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla, vide its letter no. 2497 dated 29.11.1987, issued "No Objection Certificate" in favour of petitioner for grant of mining lease and even Circle Officer, Chainpur granted "No Objection Certificate" regarding Gair Mazarua land and also gave details of consents given by owners of raiyati land pursuant to the application filed by petitioner. 3) The Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, passed order in terms of Section 5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "MMDR Act") granting prior approval for grant of mining lease by imposing a condition for submission of mining plan duly approved by Indian Bureau of Mines (for short "IBM"). 4) Subsequent to said prior approval granted by Government of India, erstwhile State of Bihar, vide its letter contained in Memo No. 7809/M dated 30th November, 1989, recorded the fact of previous approval granted by Government of India and, accordingly, informed Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga that previous approval has been granted by Government of India for grant of mining lease in favour of petitioner on a condition that the petitioner would submit mining plan duly approved by IBM. In the said letter, it was clearly recorded that previous approval has been granted by Government of India subject to approval of mining plan by IBM, failing which, previous approval towards mining lease granted in favour of petitioner would be treated to be an approval only for Prospecting Licence. Consequent upon such previous approval granted by Government of India, IBM, vide its letter dated 27.11.1990, granted approval of mining plan in favour of petitioner. Consequent upon such previous approval granted by Government of India, IBM, vide its letter dated 27.11.1990, granted approval of mining plan in favour of petitioner. Said approval of Mining Plan was also directly communicated to erstwhile State of Bihar and the said fact is recorded in the letter bearing Memo No. 1854/M dated 06.04.1991, wherein Director, Mines, State of Bihar informed to Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga that approval of mining plan has been received by the State of Bihar directly from IBM and direction was issued to Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga to obtain instructions from petitioner as to whether the petitioner intends to establish an industry over the mining area or not. In the said letter, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga was further directed to ascertain the number of trees, etc., situated over the Gair Mazarua land (Government land) through the office of Circle Officer and to get the valuation of said trees done from Circle Officer, Lohardaga. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner. 5) Pursuant thereto, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga, vide its Letter No. 506/M dated 10.07.1991, directed the petitioner to clarify as to whether he intends to establish an industry over the mining area or not, and, consequent thereto, the petitioner submitted its detailed Project Report before the Respondent-authority. However, despite aforesaid compliances being made, matter pertaining to execution of mining lease in favour of the petitioner was pending before the authorities of the State of Bihar and, in the meantime, on 15.11.2000, erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated and the new State of Jharkhand was created. 6) It is an admitted fact that mining area in question is falling in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation. Petitioner, after bifurcation, approached the office of the District Mining Officer, Gumla on several occasions by filing representations and, ultimately, District Mining Officer, Gumla, vide its Letter No. 807/M dated 15.09.2012, sought for guidelines from Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand regarding execution of mining lease in favour of the petitioner, since the matter was quite old. 7) During pendency of the aforesaid process, provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 was amended by virtue of the "Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, wherein Section 10A was inserted with effect from 12.01.2015. 7) During pendency of the aforesaid process, provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 was amended by virtue of the "Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, wherein Section 10A was inserted with effect from 12.01.2015. Consequent upon the aforesaid amendment, the office of the Directorate of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, vide its Letter No. 2049/M dated 16.09.2015, sought for certain documents in respect of mining lease, for which previous approval was granted by Government of India. 8) Thereafter, it has been stated in the Counter Affidavit that vide Letter No. 961 dated 02.11.2016 and Letter No. 1187 dated 13.12.2016, petitioner was directed to furnish certain documents in order to sanction mining lease, but it was alleged that petitioner did not reply to the said letters, and, thereafter, the State of Jharkhand, vide its communication contained in Memo No. 104/M dated 16.01.2017, communicated to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi the status of cases covered under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 wherein the name of the petitioner demonstrated in serial no.22 with remarks “Person not traceable” as is evident from Annexure-7 at page 28. It is in the aforesaid background of facts; this writ application has been filed by petitioner. 9) Counsel appearing for the petitioner laid emphasis to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c), inserted vide MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, and contended that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was granted previous approval of the Government of India for grant of mining lease of Bauxite, and, since petitioner fulfilled the condition stipulated in the previous approval granted by Government of India by getting its mining plan approved by IBM, petitioner has perfected its right in terms of aforesaid provision for grant of mining lease in its favour. It has been submitted that from bare perusal of "Statement of Objects and Reasons", of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 would reveal that salient feature of the Amendment Act, 2015 was to bring in transparency by introducing auction mechanism the grant of mineral concessions and, in the said background, comprehensive amendments were carried out under the MMDR Act, 1957, wherein under Section 10A(1), it was provided, inter alia, that all applications for grant of mining lease and/or prospecting licence, received prior to the date of commencement of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. 11) It has been emphatically submitted that although salient feature of said MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 was to introduce the mechanism of allotment of minerals through auction, but the accrued right in favour of one or the other applicants prior to coming into force the MMDR Act, 1957 was specifically saved by virtue of provisions of Section 10A(2) of the said Amendment Act, 2015. By placing reliance upon the provision of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Amendment Act, it was submitted that said provision was specifically inserted to save accrued and vested right of an applicant of mining lease, where the Central Government had already communicated previous approval for grant of mining lease or when letter of intent has been issued by State Government to grant mining lease, before commencement of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. 12) It has been submitted that said provision was specifically intended to preserve the accrued and vested right subject to fulfillment of conditions of the previous approval and/or the letter of intent by the applicant. 13) It has been further contended that the petitioner was granted previous approval in terms of Section 5(1) by Government of India with a condition that mining plan should be approved by IBM, and, it has been emphatically submitted that said condition was duly fulfilled by the petitioner, which is evident from the records of the case, but even then mining lease has not been executed by State of Jharkhand in a cavil manner and State Government has communicated to the Central Government the status of cases covered under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 by stating, inter alia, that petitioner is not traceable. 14) Per contra, learned counsel representing the State has opposed the writ petition and tried to impress upon this Court that there was no previous approval by the Central Government in terms of Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the State sought to argue before us that there was no previous approval of the Central Government and, even if approval was granted by Central Government, the same was contrary to the provisions of Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. Counsel for the State sought to argue before us that there was no previous approval of the Central Government and, even if approval was granted by Central Government, the same was contrary to the provisions of Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. As a matter of fact, during the course of argument, an endeavor was made by the State Counsel to even dispute the admitted fact regarding previous approval granted by Central Government under Section 5(1), but it was rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the fact regarding previous approval of the Central Government cannot be disputed during oral argument by the State Counsel and reference was made to Para-8 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the State wherein it was specifically pleaded that previous approval was granted by Central Government in favour of the petitioner with a condition that the petitioner would submit the approved mining plan. 15) The State Counsel further tried to impress upon this Court by referring to the provisions of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, particularly Section 5(1) thereof, to contend, inter alia, that Central Government was not entitled to grant any prior approval for the mineral-Bauxite. However, during the course of argument, petitioner's counsel has brought to our notice the legislative development of the MMDR Act, including Amendment Act of 1986, Amendment Act of 1994 and Amendment Act of 2015 and has contended that prior to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, the Central Government was competent authority to grant prior approval in respect of grant of mining lease of Bauxite. 16) In fact, after provisions of the Amendment Act, 2015 was brought to the notice of this Court, Respondent-State counsel only confined its argument by stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of the previous approval, as provided under Section 10A(1)(c) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and, hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of mining lease. 17) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of mining lease in its favour for the reasons stated hereinafter in this order. 18) Section 10A of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 is relevant for adjudication of this writ petition, which is quoted; “10A. 18) Section 10A of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 is relevant for adjudication of this writ petition, which is quoted; “10A. (1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development land Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. 18) Section 10A of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 is relevant for adjudication of this writ petition, which is quoted; “10A. (1) All applications received prior to the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development land Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015:- applications received under section 11A of this Act; where before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,-- has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government; has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting licence; has not become ineligible under the provisions of this Act; and has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such further period not exceeding six months as may be extended by the State Government; (c) where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent (by whatever name called) has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act:” 19) The provision of said Section of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 was considered by the Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary (Steel and Mines), State of Odisha & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC 125 ’ wherein Hon"ble Supreme Court, after considering the objects and reasons of the Amendment Act, 2015, held that the said Act aims at (i) eliminating discretion; (ii) improving transparency in the allocation of mineral resources; (iii) simplifying procedures; (iv) eliminating delay on administration, so as to enable expeditious and optimum development of the mineral resources of the country; (v) obtaining for the Government an enhanced share of the value of the mineral resources; and (vi) attracting private investment and the latest technology. 20) The Hon"ble Apex Court has considered the provisions of Section 10A(2) and held that said Section carves out exceptions by saving certain categories of applications even filed before the Amendment Act, 2015 came into operation and further held that in all the three cases where exceptions have been carved out, some kind of right, in law, came to be vested in these categories of cases which led Parliament to make such a provision saving those rights. 21) Applying the aforesaid ratio coupled with the facts of the present case is being considered by us. It is an admitted fact that Central Government granted previous approval in terms of Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease of Bauxite in favour of the petitioner, subject to condition of approval of mining plan by IBM. From the records, it is further an admitted fact that approval of IBM was duly granted which was duly acknowledged by Respondent-State in its various communications, but, despite thereof, no sanction for mining lease was granted by State of Jharkhand. 22) Respondent-State of Jharkhand, in its Counter Affidavit, has not disputed the aforesaid facts, but has stated, inter alia, that Letter No. 961 dated 02.11.2016 and Letter No. 1187 dated 13.12.2016 were issued directing the petitioner to furnish certain documents in order to grant mining lease and since petitioner has not responded to the said letters and not complied with the condition of the grant of previous approval, no mining lease can be executed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Amendment Act, 2015. 23) We have carefully perused the aforesaid letters annexed as Annexure-C to the Counter Affidavit and has further perused the statements made in the Counter Affidavit including Rejoinder Affidavit, wherein petitioner has categorically stated that said letters were never received by him from Respondent-authorities. 23) We have carefully perused the aforesaid letters annexed as Annexure-C to the Counter Affidavit and has further perused the statements made in the Counter Affidavit including Rejoinder Affidavit, wherein petitioner has categorically stated that said letters were never received by him from Respondent-authorities. In the Counter Affidavit, there is no proof of service of aforesaid letters to the petitioner and, on the contrary, from bare perusal of the letter written by State of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 104/M dated 16.01.2017 to Central Government informing the status of cases covered under Section 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Amendment Act, it would be evident that in the said letter, wherein the name of the petitioner demonstrated in serial no.22 with remarks “Person not traceable” (Refer Annexure-7 at page 28 of the writ application) and, on this sole ground, sanction of mining lease has not been granted by Respondent-State. 24) In our opinion, provision of Section 10A(2)(c) has carved out exceptions by saving certain categories of applications where right, in law, was vested upon certain categories of applicants prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015 and the language of Section 10A(2)(c) clearly provides, inter alia, that if condition of grant of previous approval has been fulfilled by an applicant , then mining lease shall be granted in favour of such applicant. In the present case, the only condition prescribed while granting previous approval was the sanction of mining plan by IBM, which is, admittedly, fulfilled in the present case. 25) In view of the cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we are inclined to allow this writ application and issue Mandamus upon Respondent-State of Jharkhand to act in terms of Section 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Act, 2015 and grant sanction of mining lease in favour of the petitioner for mineral-Bauxite over an area of 180.35 acres under village Dokapat, Thana No. 98, District Gumla, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Respondent-State of Jharkhand shall further facilitate the petitioner to obtain necessary statutory clearances i.e. forest clearance, environmental clearance, etc. and, thereafter on receipt of such clearances, shall execute mining lease in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time, preferably, within eight weeks after receipt of all clearances. 26) With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated herein above; however, there shall be no order as to costs. and, thereafter on receipt of such clearances, shall execute mining lease in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time, preferably, within eight weeks after receipt of all clearances. 26) With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated herein above; however, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending, I.As., if any, also stand closed.