Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 335 (AP)

Ani Mines And Minerals v. Union Of India

2025-02-21

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the 1 st respondent in final order No.1/2020 dated 14.01.2020 and pass……” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner made an application on20.03.2006 to the Director of Mines and Geology, who is the 3 rd respondent herein for grant of Prospecting Licence(PL) for Mica, Quartz, feldspar and vermiculite, over an extent of Ac.317.40, in survey No. 504, Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District for a period of two (2) years. Thereafter, on considering the said application (PL) of the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent herein, granted licence in favour of the petitioner, vide G.O.Ms. No.72, Industries and Commerce (M.I) department, dated 31.03.2007 granting Prospecting License for Mica, quartz, Feldspar and vermiculite, over an extent of 115.98 cents, in Sy.No.504 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District for a period of two (2) years in terms of Section 11(5) of Mines Mineral (regulation and development Act, 1957 (central Act 67 of 1957) and the Rules made there under and also the conditions in form -F prescribed under the Mineral Concession rules, 1960. Pursuant of the orders vide G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 31.03.2007, the petitioner executed a Prospecting Licence Deed in form "F" on 13.04.2007 and consequently the 5 th Respondent herein issued proceedings No.1110/M/2006, dated 13.04.2007, according permission and granted PL in favour of the petitioner to commence operations for the minerals stated therein for a period of two (2) years from 13.04.2007 to 12.04.2009. It is stated that the petitioner has also obtained permission for undertaking blasting operations along with others vide proceedings of the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad vide E.Misc.No.E/ SC/AP/ 22/802/(E28603), dated 15.6.2007. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has employed 25 labourers for carrying on digging the mineral and arrangements made for drinking water supply (Dug bore wells) and rest place for the labourers. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has employed 25 labourers for carrying on digging the mineral and arrangements made for drinking water supply (Dug bore wells) and rest place for the labourers. While the matter stood thus, the 6 th respondent, who is unofficial respondent has filed a revision against the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 31.3.2007 stating that “once the area had already been notified by the State Government, the State Government under for granting a Prospecting Licence on the same area is clearly illegal because the availability of mineral has already been established on the said area. Moreover the petitioner had not made any application for mining lease on the said area. The petitioner had filed counter affidavit before revisional authority in revision filed by the 6 th respondent, stating that several averments made and contentions raised by the 6 th respondent/revisionist are neither true not tenable in law. It is stated that the 6 th respondent filed revision application before the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, against orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.72, Industries and Commerce (M-I) department dated 31.03.2007, passed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Through the Impugned order, the State Government rejected the ML applications of the 6 th respondent/revisionist for mineral Qurtz, feldspar over an extant over an area of 184.82 Acres and 37.00 Acres in Survey No. 504 in Changam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District and granted PL for minerals mica, quartz, feldspar and vermiculite over an extent of 115.98 Acres in Survey No. 504 in aforesaid area infavour of the petitioner herein for a period of 2 (two) years as per the extant provisions of MMDR Act 1957 and relevant rules made thereunder and subject to outcome of the revision Application filed by Ms. Brilliant Mines and Minerals. It is further stated that, aggrieved by the Central Government's Final order No.130/2011 dated 11.02.2011, the petitioner herein/impleaded party filed a Writ Petition No. 19592/2011 before the Hon'ble High of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide its orders dated 28.01.2013. Brilliant Mines and Minerals. It is further stated that, aggrieved by the Central Government's Final order No.130/2011 dated 11.02.2011, the petitioner herein/impleaded party filed a Writ Petition No. 19592/2011 before the Hon'ble High of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide its orders dated 28.01.2013. The operative portion of the said order, as under: “the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek review before the Central Government if he has any material to establish that the area as regards which he was granted Prospecting Licence by the State Government or any part of it was not the subject matter of any mining lease. In such as event record, and pass appropriate orders, after issuing notice to the connected parties” In compliance of the above, the petitioner filed review petition before the Revisionary authority. The 6 th respondent had neither shown any interest nor cooperated with the authorities by attending inspection and signing survey report. In view of the same, the Government has issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2006 based on recommendations of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad proposed to reject the ML application on the ground that the 6 th respondent ML application was only to produce mineral and supply to buyers in the raw form but not going to establish any Industry. It is further stated that the PL application of the petitioner dated 20.03.2006 was considered by the State Government for grant of Prospective Licence (PL) for a period of 2 years from 13.4.2007 to 12.4.2009. It is further stated that, the Government has conducted Survey and Inspection on 8.6.2007 and 9.7.2008 and that the petitioner submitted an undertaking along with a Notarized affidavit before the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to the effect that it shall abide by the outcome of the Revisionary authority order vide revision application filed by M/s Brilliant Mines and Minerals and requested for grant of Mining Lease (ML). It is further stated that the mining lease expired on 01.02.1987 but no notification was published. However thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore submitted proposal to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad proposing to grant PL (Prospective Licence) over the subject area in favour of the petitioner (The IP/the Review petitioner) who submitted the project report to establish processing unit. However thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore submitted proposal to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad proposing to grant PL (Prospective Licence) over the subject area in favour of the petitioner (The IP/the Review petitioner) who submitted the project report to establish processing unit. The said unit of petitioner was categorized as eligible industry under the Andhra Pradesh state Industrial Policy (APSIP). Later, the Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal issued NOC to grant lease to the petitioner herein. Hence an area 115.98 Acres were proposed for grant of PL duly deleting the area of 55.80 Acres, which was previously held under mining lease. The Government Vide G.O. Ms. No. 72 dated 31.03.2007 sanctioned PL for Mica, Quartz, feldspar and vermiculate over an area 115.98 Acres in survey No 504, Changam village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore district to the petitioner for a period of 2 years, subject to outcome of revision application filed by the Brilliant Mines and Minerals. The petitioner also submitted consent for deleting an extent of 55.80 acres which was held under ML previously by M/s. Tellbodu mica Mines (Sri. G. Venkateshwara Rao). The PL (Prospective Licence) deed was executed by the petitioner for 2 years from 04.2007 to 12.04.2009 over an area extent to 115.98 acres in survey No.504. It is stated that, as per records, the earlier ML (Mining Lease) was granted for an extent of 308.27 Acres in survey No. 528 (45.00 acres) survey No. 504 (55.80 Acres) and Survey no.505 (207.47 acres). As such, an extent of 55.80 Acres was covered under earlier mining lease. The same extent was deleted from the area applied by the petitioner and the balance extent 115.98 acres which requires prospecting for establishment of mineral availability under section 5(2) of MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the grant of PL to petitioner vide dated 31.03.2007 was in accordance with the act and rules. Hence the contention of the State Government in his status report dated 31.07.2016 submitted to the revisional authority is totally incorrect, false and misleading and does not stand legal scrutiny. The contention of his report is as such the Mining lease (ML) in favour of one Sri. D. Narayana Reddy to an extent of 89.76 acres granted on 16.06.1976, expired on 08.08.1996, the area of Mining lease as held by Sri. The contention of his report is as such the Mining lease (ML) in favour of one Sri. D. Narayana Reddy to an extent of 89.76 acres granted on 16.06.1976, expired on 08.08.1996, the area of Mining lease as held by Sri. D. Narayana Reddy to an extent of 89.76 acres in vast extent of 317.40 cents in survey no. 504 and 512 area is quite different from that of the area applied for prospective Licence (PL) and was granted also.The 1 st Respondent without considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner in revision, passed the impugned order, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 to 5 denying all the allegations made in the petition. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the Petitioner has filed review petition before the Revisional authority and the Revisional Authority vide Final Order No. 01/2020, dated 14.01.2020 in Revision Application File No. 02(03)/2013/RC.II came to the conclusion that, the Petitioner could not produce any material or document to substantiate that no part of the area under Prospecting License granted to him was subject matter of any Mining Lease as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. On the contrary, the State Government affirmed in the course of hearing that the part of the Prospecting License area granted to the Petitioner was earlier under Mining Lease and hence disposed of the Revision Application finds that no ground to interfere with the Order No. 130/2011, dated 11.02.2011. Hence, aggrieving the orders of the Government of India dated 14.01.2021 the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. It is stated that, as per the records of this office the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.291, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 04.03.1967 granted a Mining Lease for Mica over an extent of 308.27 Acres in Sy.No.504 (55.80 Acres) & 505 (207.47 Acres) of Chaganam Village and Sy.No.528 (45.00 Acres) of Molakalapoondla Village, Sydapuram Mandal for a period of 20 years in favour of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao and the same was executed vide Rc.No.A 10.3745/67, dated 20.08.1967 of the District Collector, Nellore. In this Mining Lease, out of the 308.27 Acres granted area an extent of 55.80 Acres was present in Sy.No.504 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, and hence, while granting the Prospecting License to the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.72, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 31.03.2007 this area of 55.80 Acres which earlier under Mining Lease was deleted and granted an extent of 115.98 Acres only against the applied extent of 317.40 Acres in Sy.No.504 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, where there are no Mining Leases granted earlier. Further it is stated that, this Respondent Office Technical Staff has inspected the subject area on 05.07.2016 and reported that, part of the Prospecting License area granted in favour of the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.72, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 31.03.2007 is covered under the Mining Lease area granted vide G.O.Ms.No.548, dated 16.06.1976 for Mica & Vermiculite over an extent of 89.76 Acres in Sy.No.504 (87.00 Acres) & 512 (2.76 Acres) of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in favour of Sri D.Narayana Reddy for a period of 20 years from 09.08.1976 to 08.08.1996. Further reported that, the subject area was inspected by the then Technical Assistant on 05.01.2000 and reported that, there are four (4) abonded pits in the subject area on the day of inspection and the photos downloadedfrom Google website for the year 2002 also reveals that, there are old mine workings at the subject area. Hence, concluded that part of the area granted under the subject Prospecting License is subjected mining operations earlier under Mining Lease grant. It is stated that, in the subject Prospecting License granted area part of the area is under granted Mining Leases earlier and part of the area is virgin and thereby there is a need to prospect the area to establish the availability of mineral as per the Section-5(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri V. Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared virtually through Video conferencing, representing Ms. V. Himabindu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri V. Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared virtually through Video conferencing, representing Ms. V. Himabindu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Central Government counsel for appearing for the 1 st respondent; Mr P. Rama Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondents No.2 to 5 and Mr.G. Raja Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent-unofficial respondent. 5. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the averments made in the petition, argued that, the Prospecting License granted in G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 31.03.2007 is to explore, locating and proving Mineral deposits which got limited role before grant of Mining Lease as provided u/s 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. Once the investigation is conducted and report has been submitted, the effect of Prospecting License is coming to an end. Thereafter no cause is remained to challenge G.O.Ms.No.72 which was issued on 31.03.2007. In the present case the Prospecting report was submitted on 17.05.2007 along with test reports and other investigation documents, as such, there is no cause does survive to challenge G.O.Ms.No. 72 and the Revision Petition against such G.O., is not maintainable. He submits that, on this sole ground, the Revision Petition ought to have dismissed by allowing the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. He further submits that under Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (for short “APMMC Rules”) the revision against the order of State Government shall be filed within 90 days. 6. Learned Senor counsel further argued that, in the present case, the impugned G.O. was passed on 31.03.2007, whereas, the 6th respondent has filed Revision Petition on 10.11.2008 beyond 90 days, and as such, it is barred by limitation, and liable to be rejected. However under proviso to Rule 54, the 1 st respondent can condone the delay but it should be on an application duly explaining the delay on which the competent authority can record such reasons to condone the delay which was absent in the present case. He submits that the authority cannot entertain this Revision, beyond stipulated time, without explaining just reasons for such condoning the delay. In view of the same the revision is not maintained and contrary to the settled principles of law. 7. He submits that the authority cannot entertain this Revision, beyond stipulated time, without explaining just reasons for such condoning the delay. In view of the same the revision is not maintained and contrary to the settled principles of law. 7. Learned senior counsel Sri V. Venugopal Rao, further submits that, the 1 st respondent has stated in the impugned order that there is no fresh material filed in the present review application is absolutely incorrect. Learned Senior counsel mainly contended that the applied area is Ac 317.40 cents, after deleting said extent Ac 55.80 cents, granted Prospecting License only for AC 115.98 cents as suchthe subject land is not covered by earlier Mining Lease. The same is reflecting from the impugned order vide paras 6 (v), (vi) and (vii), on which absolutely there is no finding and reference with regard to new material which is not there in the earlier order. He submits that the new material is placed before the 1 st respondent authority by the Government and the petitioner which is referred to in para 6 (v), (vi) and (vii), in the impugned order, but in routine course, it is held that there is no new material, which is unsustainable and contrary to the order of this Hon'ble court earlier passed in W.P.No.19592/2011. He further submits that though there is sufficient fresh material, placed and made available, the 1 st respondent failed to consider and confirmed mechanically, the order in earlier Revision vide Order No 130/2011 dated 11 .02.2011. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, learned counsel prayed to allow the writ petition while setting aside the order dated 14.1.2020 passed by the 1 st respondent. 8. Per contra, learned Central Government appearing for the 1 st respondent opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, learned counsel prayed to allow the writ petition while setting aside the order dated 14.1.2020 passed by the 1 st respondent. 8. Per contra, learned Central Government appearing for the 1 st respondent opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, argued that, as per the Section-5(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, "no mining lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that (a) There is evidence to show the existence of mineral contents in the area for which the application for a mining lease has been made in accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed for this purpose by the Central Government: (b) There is mining plan duly approved by the Central Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned:" Therefore, in the subjecting prospecting License granted area part of the area is under granted Mining Lease earlier and part of the area is virgin and thereby there is a need to prospect the area to establish the availability of mineral as per the Section 5(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act 1957. 10. Perused the material on record. 11. 10. Perused the material on record. 11. As seen from G.O.Ms.No.72 Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 31.3.2007, wherein it is stated that: “…in the circumstances, the Government hereby sanction a Prospecting License for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over an extent of 115.98 Acres in Sy.No. 504 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District in favour of Sri K.Chitti Babu (M/s Ani Mines and Minerals) for a period of 2 years, by taking into consideration what is prescribed under Section 11(5) of M.M. (D&R) Act, 1957, subject to the provisions of Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act No.67 of 1957) and the rules made there under in general subject to also the conditions in Form-F prescribed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and to the additional conditions specified in the Appendix to this order and also subject to out come of Revision Application filed by M/s Brilliant Mines & Minerals, while rejecting the applications of (1) Sri Vadde Srinivasa Rao (ML) (2) Sri Vadde Srinivasa Rao (ML) (3) M/s Bhargava Mines and Minerals (PL) (4) Sri V.Ramaiah (ML) and (5) Bhargava Mines and Minerals (ML) on the grounds discussed in the foregoing paras..” 12. On a perusal of the Revision Application filed by the 6 th respondent, wherein the petitioner, as an impleaded party, has filed counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, it was stated as under: “……..that several averments made and contentions raised by the Revisionist are neither true nor tenable in law. The Revisionist received the Impugned order on 10.04.07 but the Revisionist did not file the revision deliberately within the stipulated period. Medical Certificate and medical prescriptions filed by the Revisionist are totally misconceived and does not have any sanctity. It is reliable learnt that the Revisionist was actively attending the Mofussil Courts during the alleged period from 31.06.07 to 31.08.08. In view of the above, the instant RA may be dismissed.” 13. It is to be noted that, earlier, the petitioner filed writ petition before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No.19592 of 2011, wherein it was observed as under: The particulars of the applications that were received for prospecting or mining leases, as the case may be, have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. It is to be noted that, earlier, the petitioner filed writ petition before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No.19592 of 2011, wherein it was observed as under: The particulars of the applications that were received for prospecting or mining leases, as the case may be, have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Out of the six (6) applications, be it for prospecting or mining leases, that were before it, the 2nd respondent granted prospecting lease to the petitioner. The application filed by the 5th respondent was for mining lease. His principal contention was that the area was already exploited and in that view of the matter grant of prospecting licence cannot be sustained. That contention weighed with the 1" respondent. The petitioner raised two grounds in his challenge to the impugned order. The first is about the delay in filing the revision by the 5th respondent, and the second is on merits. It is not in dispute that there was delay of 485 days in filing the revision by the 5th respondent. An application was filed by the 5th respondent for condonation of delay. In support of his plea, he filed a medical certificate and prescriptions. On receipt of notice in the matter, the petitioner filed a counter affidavit on 08-10-2010. The plea of the 5th respondent as to the justification for condonation of delay was strongly opposed by the petitioner. The revision was heard on several occasions and ultimately it was allowed by observing that once the land was already covered by the mining lease on earlier occasions, there was no justification for granting prospecting lease.” 14. On a perusal of the above order, it is also observed that, It is true, in the ordinary course of things, whenever an appeal or revision is filed beyond the stipulated period of limitation, an order condoning, or refusing to condone the delay is passed by the concerned authority and adjudication of the case on merits must take place if only the delay is condoned. Though this may be a settled procedure in the adjudication before the regular Courts of law, the quasi judicial proceedings stands lightly on a different footing. The authority is very much placed under the obligation to deal with the aspect of delay. However, it is not necessary that a separate order dealing with the question of delay must be passed. Though this may be a settled procedure in the adjudication before the regular Courts of law, the quasi judicial proceedings stands lightly on a different footing. The authority is very much placed under the obligation to deal with the aspect of delay. However, it is not necessary that a separate order dealing with the question of delay must be passed. The satisfaction or otherwise of the authority on this aspect can be discerned from the contents of the order even if it is passed straight away, on merits. If the order reflects that the authority applied its mind to the question of delay, took note of the plea of the party, which prayed for condonation of delay, and the opposition offered to the same by the opposite party, it can be said to have applied its mind to the question of delay. From the fact that the authority has decided the matter on merits after referring to the question of delay, it can be inferred that it has condoned the delay.Hence, the said writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review before the 1st respondent if he has any material to establish that the area as regards which he was granted prospecting licence by the Government or any part of it was not the subject matter of any mining lease. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has made an application before the 1 st respondent. Moreover, in the instant case, the 1 st respondent did not pass a separate order on the question of delay. However, it did address the same by taking note of the contentions of the parties in this regard. In paragraph No.4 of its order, it took note of the plea raised by the 5th respondent and the petitioner herein as under: "In the Counter Affidavit dated 08.10.10 filed by the Impleaded Party, it has been stated that several averments made and contentions raised by the Revisionist are neither true nor tenable in law. The Revisionist received the Impugned order on 10.04.07 but the Revisionist did not file the revision deliberately within the stipulated period. Medical Certificate and medical prescriptions filed by the Revisionist are totally misconceived and does not have any sanctity.” 15. Coming to the present facts of the case, it is observed that, the discussion undertaken by the 1 st respondentis very brief. Medical Certificate and medical prescriptions filed by the Revisionist are totally misconceived and does not have any sanctity.” 15. Coming to the present facts of the case, it is observed that, the discussion undertaken by the 1 st respondentis very brief. It dealt with only one aspect namely 'whether the prospecting lease can be granted in respect of any land which was the subject matter of mining lease on earlier occasions.’ A plea was raised before it that the area was already exploited under mining lease. The record does not disclose that the petitioner has raised any specific objection for this, or took any plea to the contrary. Further, the 1 st respondent extracted sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Mines and Mineral Concession Rules and held that grant of Prospecting Licence In favour of the petitioner is untenable. 16. It is an admitted fact that the State Government contention of the report dated 31.07.2016 as Assistant Geologist, and Surveyor and Technical Assistant conducted unilateral survey on 5.7.2016. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the survey was conducted in the subject mining area without giving any prior notice or intimation to the petitioner and behind his back, they conducted survey and the same was also brought to the notice of the revisional authority and the petitioner requested the 1 st respondent to direct the mining authority to again conduct a Joint survey along with concerned officials in the leased area of the petitioner. But the same was not considered and passed orders ignoring the earlier report of the State Government dated 28.5.2013 only considering the remarks submitted by the Government dated31.7.2016 is highly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 17. Further, this Court has already held in WP No.19592/2011 in para-20 in point VI as “the prospective licence granted area vide G.O.Ms.No.72 Industries and Commerce Department, is not covered by the area which was previously under Mining Lease since the Prospecting Licence was granted by duly deleting an extent of 55.80 cents which was previously under Mining Lease.” 18. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the revisional authority, without taking into consideration the above facts, mechanically passed the impugned order and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 19. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the revisional authority, without taking into consideration the above facts, mechanically passed the impugned order and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order No.1/2020 dated 14.01.2020 issued by the 1 st respondent is hereby set aside. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed.