1. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr. K.A Ariga, learned Central Government Counsel, accepts notice for the respondent No. 1.
3. Mr. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Therefore, formal service of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
5. Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, relies upon the decision of this Court in SMT. A.V SHAKUNTALA v. UNION of INDIA in Writ Petition Nos. 36461 to 36463 of 2016 and connected matters, dated December 1, 2016. He submits that his client has complied with all the formalities. He draws our attention to Annexure-D to the writ petition dated April 2, 2008, which has been a communication from the office of the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru, to the Secretary to Government, Department of Commerce and Industries (Mines, SSI and Textiles), where recommendations were made to grant mining lease for iron ore in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the writ petitioner is entitled for the mining lease.
6. We feel that there are correspondences to show that there were intentions on the part of the authorities to grant mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner.
7. We direct the authorities to consider, grant and execute the mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner upon compliance of all formalities in the light of our decision in SMT. A.V SHAKUNTALA (supra), by December 31, 2016.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of.
9. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, disposed of.
10. We make no order as to costs.