JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Mahabeer Prashad had submitted an application for the grant of mining lease for an area of 1 sq. KM near village Makadi, tehsil Nimkhathana, district Sikar, under the Rajasthan Minor-Mineral Concession Rules 1977 (for short the RMMCR). The said application was rejected by the State Govt. under its order dated August 17, 1979 and the petitioner had filed a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (for short the MMRD Act) and that revision petition was allowed by the Central Government under its order dated May 14, 1980 and a direction was given to the State Government to pass an appropriate order within a period of 200 days. The State Government did not comply with the aforesaid directions of the Central Government and, therefore, after the expiry of 200 days as prescribed by the Central Government the petitioner again filed revision petition before the Central Govt. which was again accepted and a direction was issued to the State Government to pass an order on the application of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease as aforesaid within 100 days. The State Government again rejected the application of the petitioner and that order as challenged by the petitioner before the Central Government in revision petition No. 1,979/82, M-IV and the Final Order No. 34/87 was made by the Central Government on 12.2.87, dismissing the revision petition. It may be stated that in the aforesaid revision petition on the application of Shri Om Prakash, respondent No. 3 he too was impleaded as a party and the necessity of impleading him as a party arose because during the pendency of the revision petition before the Central Government filed by the petitioner, the mining lease for an area of 100 x 100 (sic. meters) i. e. one hectare had been granted to the said On Prakash out of the area for which the petitioner had submitted his application. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Central Government mainly on the ground that his application for the grant of mining lease was to be disposed of in accordance with the policy in force as on January 8, 1979 and the petitioner was entitled to the grant of mining lease for I Sq. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Central Government mainly on the ground that his application for the grant of mining lease was to be disposed of in accordance with the policy in force as on January 8, 1979 and the petitioner was entitled to the grant of mining lease for I Sq. KM and his application for mining lease could not have been dismissed on the grounds contained in the order of the State Government as well as of the Central Govt. The challenge to the aforesaid order of the Central Govt. is also on the ground, that the grant to Om Prakash as aforesaid of a mining lease for (Marble) during the pendency of the revision petition before the Central Government is void, nonest and the grant could not have been made during the pendency of revision petition and it was not necessary for the petitioner to have filed revision against the grant of mining lease to Om Prakash. There is no dispute that Modi Minerals and Grinding Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Banwarilal Agarwal were holding mining leases for dolomite, a major mineral, in major part of the area for which the petitioner had filed an application for the grant of mining lease for marble Under R. 11 of RMMCR the mining lease shall he granted for such area as the Government may deem fit. The discretion is vested in the Director Mines & Geology. Rajasthan, to fix the minimum area for the grant of a mining lease for it particular mineral and for a particular area, but it shall not be less than 50 metres X 50 metres. In exercise of the aforesaid powers from time to time the State Govt. has fixed the minimum area for the grant of a mining lease for different minor minerals. Under its notification dated November 15, 1978, published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary of even date, the State Govt. fixed minimum area of 1 Sq. KM for the grant of mining lease for marble in Neemkathana and Kotputli areas. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid notification that earlier to it, under notification dated 30th November, 1961, published in Rajasthan Gazette para 2 the State Government had fixed the minimum area as 4 Sq. Miles for the grant of a mining lease for the aforesaid mineral-marble in the aforesaid areas of Kotputli and Neemkathana. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid notification that earlier to it, under notification dated 30th November, 1961, published in Rajasthan Gazette para 2 the State Government had fixed the minimum area as 4 Sq. Miles for the grant of a mining lease for the aforesaid mineral-marble in the aforesaid areas of Kotputli and Neemkathana. After the aforesaid notification of the State Government the petitioner applied for the grant of mining lease for marble for 1 Sq. KM area in Neemkathana. The application of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease filed under RMMCR was rejected on the ground that the area had been reserved for establishing a cement industry. A revision was filed and the Central Govt. as stated earlier under its order dated 14th May, 1980 allowed the same, directed the State Govt. to dispose of the application within 200 days but the direction was not complied with, a revision was again filed, which was allowed and the State Govt. was directed to dispose of the petition within 100 days, which was disposed of and was rejected. The rejection of the aforesaid application for the grant of mining lease was on the ground that the area was not undisputed one and is covered by the stay-order. The said order was challenged and as already stated earlier the Central Govt. dismissed the revision-petition of the petitioner under its order dated 25th Feb., 1987. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had applied in pursuance of notification dated November 15, 1978, under which the mineral area for mining lease for marble was fixed as one Sq. KM. His application, therefore, should have been disposed of under that notification and merely because subsequently said notification was withdrawn and the minimum area was re-fixed the application of the petitioner could not have been dealt with under the new policy. We may state that the aforesaid notification dated 15.11.78. fixing the area as one sq. KM for the grant of mining lease for marble in Kotputli, Neemkathana areas was withdrawn under notification dated Dec. 21, 1979 published in Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary of even date. Under the aforesaid notification.while cancelling the notification dated 15.2.78, it was provided that in Kotputli. We may state that the aforesaid notification dated 15.11.78. fixing the area as one sq. KM for the grant of mining lease for marble in Kotputli, Neemkathana areas was withdrawn under notification dated Dec. 21, 1979 published in Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary of even date. Under the aforesaid notification.while cancelling the notification dated 15.2.78, it was provided that in Kotputli. Neemkathana areas, the mining lease for lime-stone and marble for the minimum area of 150X150 metres shall be granted under the RMMCR.It was also intimated that the date for taking the application for the grant of mining lease shall be notified by the Director. It can, therefore. be said that the aforesaid notification dated November 15, 1978 had been withdrawn and therefore it was no longer in force and even if the application of the petitioner had been submitted on 8.1.1979 it could not have been disposed of under the notification which was no longer in force. The notification having been withdrawn the applications filed under it could not he said to be alive. Not only this the aforesaid notification dated 21.12.1979 was further modified in view of the Govt. policy, and it was provided that ordinarily a mining lease for marble shall be granted for an area of 100X100 mt. i.e. one hectare. There can be no dispute that as stated earlier under Rule I I of RMMCR, the State Govt. has the powers to grant a mining lease for such area as it may deem fit. Therefore, because as a matter of policy the State Govt. decided to grant a mining-lease for marble only for 100X100 metres i. e. one hectare, applications which were pending or can be said to be pending had to be disposed of in accordance with the policy of the State Govt. and in accordance with the area fixed for the grant of mining lease by the State Govt. under Rule 11 of RMMCR. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone etc. AIR 1981 SC 711 , the Court said that no one has a vested right to the grant of renewal of a 1ease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. AIR 1981 SC 711 , the Court said that no one has a vested right to the grant of renewal of a 1ease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in any one, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. Holding so, the submission on behalf of the appellants that the application for grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist, was repelled and it was held that application even though made long before the aforesaid rule 8C, should be dealt with in accordance with rule 8C. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner could not have been granted a mining lease for marble in an area of 1 sq. KM for which he had applied. We will later on deal with the question as, to whether application of the petitioner can be disposed of under the notifications referred to earlier and at least under the notification dated February 27, 1983, under which mining lease for marble could have been granted for an area of 100X100 metres i.e one hectare. 4. We have already said earlier that there is no dispute that there were two mining leases granted according to the Rules to persons who have been named above for major mineral-dolomite and the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Banwarilal is the brother of the petitioner and was holding one of the two mining leases for dolomite. We have already said earlier that there is no dispute that there were two mining leases granted according to the Rules to persons who have been named above for major mineral-dolomite and the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Banwarilal is the brother of the petitioner and was holding one of the two mining leases for dolomite. The question is, if there is already a mining lease for a major mineral under the Rules and if some body applies for mining lease for a minor mineral under RMMCR what procedure is to be followed in the case of the applicant' Two sets of Rules i. e. Rules and the RMMCR have been framed by the Central Government and State Government respectively under powers vested in each of them under Section 13 as well as Section 15 of the Act and both operate in different fields. The Rules apply to major minerals and RMMCR apply to minor minerals, the field assigned to the Central Government as well as State Government. There is a provision in the rules as well as RMMCR so far as the grant of mining lease for any other mineral which is found within the area for which a mining lease has been granted. Rule 24 (4) of the Rules provides that where an application for a mining lease for a mineral or minerals not specified in the existing mining lease or mining leases is made for the whole or part of the area held under mining lease by a person other than the lessee, the State Government shall notify this fact to the person who already holds mining leases for another mineral in the land applied for. If on receipt of information as stated above from the State Government the lessee applies either for prospecting licence or mining lease for newly discovered mineral or minerals within six months from the date of communication of the information by the State Government, the lessee shall be preferred in respect of such grant. If the lessee fails to apply for prospecting licence or mining lease within six months, then this fact will be intimated to the applicant by the State Government and the State Government will consider the original application in accordance with the rules. If the lessee fails to apply for prospecting licence or mining lease within six months, then this fact will be intimated to the applicant by the State Government and the State Government will consider the original application in accordance with the rules. Under RMMCR to meet such a situation, provisions have been made under Rule 18 which deals with the conditions which shall he included in every mining lease and if they are not so included then they shall be deemed to have been included therein. Under Clause 15 to Rule 18 of RMMCR provision has been made to meet such a contingency. Where a new mineral is found while working a mining lease the lessee has to report to the Director or any other Authorised Officer of discovery of any mineral not specified in the lease and to intimate his intention to work the newly found mineral or minerals and to apply for the grant of mining lease. If the lessee who finds the new mineral while working the mineral for which the lease has been granted, fails to apply for the grant of mining lease within six months from the date of communication it shall be open to the State Govt. to give the lease to the applicant in accordance with the relevant rules. A perusal of the above rules will show that both in case of major as well as minor mineral the priority so far as the newly found mineral is concerned to work it out and to get it fresh mining lease is of the lessee and only if the lessee does not avail of the opportunity and does not want to work the newly found mineral, the application of any other party can be disposed of for the grant of that mineral in accordance with the above set of rules. It will therefore, be clear that if the petitioner wanted to work the minor mineral (marble) which was a newly found mineral in the area of mining lease, for major mineral, then it was necessary for the Competent Authorities to have first intimated the lease holders and if the lease holder did not want to work out the newly found mineral also he had the priority for the grant of mining lease the application of the petitioner could have been allowed.We have already said that two sets of rules operate in different fields, one operates in the field of major minerals, there is no provision in any of the rules to meet a situation where while working the area for a major mineral a minor mineral was found or vice-versa and only in the Act itself such a provision could have been made but there is no such provision. Be that as it may if the petitioner had applied for a minor mineral (Marble) for an area of 1 sq. KM and if the either lessee was already operating the area or part of the area for a major mineral then it was necessary for the competent authorities to have intimated to that lessee that a new mineral-marble, which is minor mineral has been found and an application has been received for the grant of a mining lease and whether they wanted a mining lease for that marble also. But nothing of this sort appears to have been done, though we shall presently show in some other came a similar stand was taken by the competent authority. A reference in this connection may be made to Annexure-9, an order made in Appeal No. 69/1985, in the case of Hari Ram v. Mining Engineer, Jaipur . That appeal was preferred under Rule 44(l) of R M M C R and was disposed of under order dated 29th September, 1986. it has been said in para 3 of the aforesaid order that the duty to obtain N. O. C. was of the State Government. In that case the area for which an application for mining lease for marble was submitted was already covered by a mining lease for dolomite, a major mineral. The Appellate Authority remanded the appeal with a direction to the Mining Engineer to obtain a N. O. C. from the lease of dolomite. In that case the area for which an application for mining lease for marble was submitted was already covered by a mining lease for dolomite, a major mineral. The Appellate Authority remanded the appeal with a direction to the Mining Engineer to obtain a N. O. C. from the lease of dolomite. Therefore, as stated earlier as and when in the area in which a mining lease for major or minor mineral has been granted a new minerals found the Competent Authority must intimate the fact to lessee and where lessee within the period specified under the Rules fails to apply for mining lease (sic original application) shall be considered. These provisions have been made to avoid complications and to save as far as possible any dispute which may arise as a result of two different persons working in the same area for more than one mineral. In the instant case if the petitioner would have been entitled for a mining lease for one sq. KM, perhaps we would have had recourse to the above principle of law, but we had already said earlier that the notification under which the State Government had decided as a matter of policy to give mining lease for 1 sq. KM area had been withdrawn and the Notification which was in force was only under which a mining lease for an area 100X100 metres i.e. 1 hectare can be granted. We have also said that as a result of withdrawal of the notification the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be alive. Therefore there can be no dispute that the area was disputed and on that ground the State Government could have dismissed the application of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease. 5. We may state that neither the State Govt. nor the Central Govt. took into consideration the fact as to whether a mining lease for an area of 100X100 metres could he granted to the petitioner for marble or not? We have already made a reference to Rule 11 of RMMCR and the mining lease can be granted for such an area for which the State Govt. may deem fit. A reference to Rule 5 of the RMMCR may be made at this stage. We have already made a reference to Rule 11 of RMMCR and the mining lease can be granted for such an area for which the State Govt. may deem fit. A reference to Rule 5 of the RMMCR may be made at this stage. Under the aforesaid rule and moreso its proviso (3) (a) every application made under sub-rule (I) and (2) shall be accompanied by a plan of the area of land in respect of lease desired. Thus the application for mining lease has to he accompanied by a map or plan showing area of land and in this case it is not disputed that when the petitioner filed his application for mining lease for 1 sq. KM area he had submitted a plan as required under the aforesaid proviso. A look at Annexure R. 16 will show that it has been shown thereunder as to which part of the area was covered under the mining lease of Modi Minerals Grinding Mills and which part of area was covered by the lease of Shri Banwarilal as well as of respondent No. 3 Shri Om Prakash. 6. The contention of Shri Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the petitioner applied for 1 sq. KM area for mining lease and even if hater on the policy was revised and notification was issued the application of the petitioner for the grant of mining lease could have been granted in accordance with the rules and should have been considered. He contends that his application shall be deemed to be pending and will be earlier in time than the application of Om Prakash. His contention is that the grant in favour of Om Prakash was viod and it was not necessary for the petitioner to have filed a revision petition for setting aside the grant in favour of Om Prakash. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Krishna Kumar Mediratta v. Phulchand Agarwal and others ( AIR 1977 SC 984 ) . It was a case for the grant of prospecting licence. The respondent had applied for a prospecting licence for 748.16 acres but out of that area, 272.40 acres were common with those for which Krishna Kumar appellant had also filed his application. It was a case for the grant of prospecting licence. The respondent had applied for a prospecting licence for 748.16 acres but out of that area, 272.40 acres were common with those for which Krishna Kumar appellant had also filed his application. The prospecting licence was granted for 272 acres to Phulchand and the said grant was challenged by Krishna Kumar on the ground that his application was filed earlier, he should be preferred to Phulchand. The Supreme Court said that the grant of licence to Phulchand was in contravention of Section 19 of the Act and, therefore, was void. It was further held that even if the grant in favour of Phulchand was not set aside by the Central Government the High Court would enquire in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act as licence in favour of Phulchand was itself void to the extent of an area of 272.40 acres for which Krishna Kumar had already properly applied. The Supreme Court further said that unless the appellant's application had been properly refused for a valid reason, he could not be denied the benefit of Section 11 (2) of the Act. 7. We may state that the facts in the case before the Supreme Court were different. Therefore, there was no dispute in so far as the area applied for is concerned. In the instant case we have already made a reference at an earlier stage of this order of the notification dated December 21, 1979. under which the earlier notification dated 15-11-78 had been cancelled. Net only this under the notification dated 21-12-79 it was further provided that minimum area in Kotputli Neem-Ka-Thana will be 150x150 metres and the date for inviting applications for the aforesaid area shall he notified by the Director. It goes to show that the fresh applications for the grant of mining lease for minimum area of 150xl50 metres were to be invalid. It goes to show that the fresh applications for the grant of mining lease for minimum area of 150xl50 metres were to be invalid. The earlier notification dated 15-11-78, having been cancelled, the application made therein could not survive and therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner or any body else to apply afresh for the grant of mining lease in accordance with the terms of notification dated 21-12-79 and admittedly the petitioner has not applied and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be pending because as stated earlier under Rule 5(3)(a) of the RMMCR, the application has to be accompanied by a plan of the area together with description report connecting one of the corner pillars with a fixed reference point in the vicinity. The petitioner was required to illustrate by map or plan showing the situation 150x150 or 100x100 metres is concerned. There is no rule laying down that the Mining Engineer mast have asked the petitioner for which area the mining lease he wants. Thus we are of the opinion that the petitioner's application in this case could not be said to be pending and it was necessary for the petitioner to file an application afresh for the grant of mining lease for 100x100 metres. Therefore, if Om Prakash filed an application for the grant of mining lease after the notification dated February 22, 1983, for an area of 100x100 metres and if the mining lease was granted for that area, the petitioner can have no grievance. 8. Consequently. we find no merit in the writ petition. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. The stay order dated March 20, 1987, stands vacated. 9. It was given out by Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the respondents that in case the petitioner now applies for the grant of mining lease in accordance with the policy now in force and if any area is available, his application for grant of mining lease shall be considered in accordance with rules.Petition dismissed. *******