M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE PETITIONER WAS AN APPLICANT FOR GRANT OF MINING LEASE UNDER THE MINERAL concession RULES, 1960 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'the RULES' ). ON 29-3-1985, HE made THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF MINING LEASE OVER HIS PATTA LANDS BEARING SY. NOS. 412/2-A, 412/3 AND 412/4 MEASURING 68 ACRES AND AN EXTENT OF 34 ACRES OUT OF SY. NO. 412 SITUATED AT SIRSI (AURAD) IN BIDAR DISTRICT. THE LEASE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF mining AND REMOVING RED-OCHRE WHICH IS USED FOR PREPARATION OF PAINTS. ( 2 ) IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY IN KARNATAKA KEPT ON CORRESPONDING WITH THE PETITIONER EVEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF application GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT HIS APPLICATION WAS STILL PENDING AND ultimately INFORMED HIM THAT IT HAD BEEN REJECTED AS PER ANNEXURE-G. HOWEVER, ON 18-7-1984/8th AUGUST, 1986 HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN REJECTED under RULE 24 (3) OF THE RULES. BUT ACTUALLY SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES provides FOR DEEMED REJECTION IF THE APPLICATION FOR MINING LEASE IS NOT OTHERWISE disposed OF. HOWEVER, THAT MAY BE, THE PETITIONER PREFERRED A REVISION PETITION UNDER rule 54 OF THE RULES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BY THE INTIMATION DATED 12th MAY, 1988, HIS REVISION HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BEYOND THE TIME SPECIFIED for PREFERRING A REVISION PETITION, AS HIS REVISION PETITION STOOD REJECTED ON 18-8-1987 by OPERATION OF LAW IN TERMS OF SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES. AGGRIEVED BY THE same, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION SEEKING an ORDER QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION AS AT ANNEXURE-F INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT the DATE OF INTIMATION AS AT ANNEXURE-G IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR PURPOSE OF PREFERRING the REVISION PETITION AND NOT THE DATE OF DEEMED REJECTION. ( 3 ) I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION. ALL THAT ANNEXURE-G STATES IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF MINING LEASE HAD STOOD REJECTED BY lapse OF TIME. IT DID NO MORE THAN REITERATE WHAT THE CORRECT POSITION IN LAW IS. THEREFORE, THIS COURT CANNOT CONSTRUE ANNEXURE-G INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PROVISION made UNDER SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES. ALL THAT ANNEXURE-G STATES IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF MINING LEASE HAD STOOD REJECTED BY lapse OF TIME. IT DID NO MORE THAN REITERATE WHAT THE CORRECT POSITION IN LAW IS. THEREFORE, THIS COURT CANNOT CONSTRUE ANNEXURE-G INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PROVISION made UNDER SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES. THE COMMUNICATION AT ANNEXURE-F therefore STATES THE CORRECT POSITION AND REJECTION OF THE REVISION PETITION AS BELATED IS within THE COMPETENCE OF THE UNION GOVERNMENT AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. ( 4 ) THE PETITION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IT IS REJECTED. --- *** --- .