(1.) The dispute involved in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in a very narrow compass.
(2.) With a view to appreciate the legal issue which arises for consideration in this petition, a brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary.
(3.) According to the case of the petitioner, on 25th March 2015, the Department of Mines and Geology of the State Government opined that the case of the petitioner will fall in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10-A of the said Act of 1957. An order was made on 10th November 2016 by the State of Karnataka holding that prior approval under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1957 has been obtained on the premises and processes which are now proved beyond doubt to be erroneous, flawed and in contravention of law. The order further mentions that the Government of India should be requested to withdraw the prior approval granted to the petitioner under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1957. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order dated 10th November 2016. Subsequently, an email dated 3rd January 2017 was issued by the Under Secretary of Ministry of Mines to the Government of Karnataka. The said email deals with the request of the Government of Karnataka to withdraw prior approval under sub-section (1) Section 5 of the said Act of 1957. The email records that since it is the State Government which had erred in the process, it is for the State Government to withdraw the recommendation made by it. It was further observed that once the recommendation letter is withdrawn by the State Government, the Central Government's letter conveying its prior approval suo motu becomes infructuous. Subsequently, by a communication dated 4th January 2017, the Government of Karnataka informed the petitioner that the recommendation for grant of previous approval made by the State Government was withdrawn for the reasons stated therein. In the light of the email dated 3rd January 2017, the Government of Karnataka observed in the said letter that the grant of approval under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1957 had become infructuous.