JUDGMENT The petitioner is a lessee under the Rules known as Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (for brevity here in after referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner expired but before expiration of the lease, the petitioner moved an application for renewal of the mining lease under sub-rule (1) of Rule' 24-A of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the said sub-rule (1) which is extracted below :-- "(1) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form J, atleast twelve months before the date on which the lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government !nay specify in this behalf." He submitted that his application was not decided by the State Government and as such, he got deemed extension by a further period of one year by virtue of the deeming provision, but the State Government has not yet decided his application. In the present case the question of involvement is of interpretation of Clause (6) of Rule 24-A. No factual controversy is involved. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the" respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue the mining operations until the application of the lessee is finally decided by the State Government. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 24-A provides that if the application for first renewal of a mining lease made within the time provided for, is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, then, by virtue of the fiction, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period of one year. And the further words used in the provision "or end with the date of receipt of the orders of the State Government thereon, whichever is shorter." On the basis of the words as have been quoted above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease would continue till the orders of the State Government on the application for renewal of the application. Learned State counsel submitted that the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance, as it would amount to provide something which the law has not provided. The learned State counsel submitted that the words "whichever is shorter" are relevant and he submitted that the fiction is only for a period which can end in one year and therefore it could maximum be one year or maximum for one year but it can be for a shorter period but it cannot be beyond a period of one year. He further submitted that if the State Government has not decided the application, then after the expiry of the period of one year, the petitioner-lessee has no right to continue the lease as he has to apply afresh. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the factual position cannot be stated before the Court where the State Government has taken a decision or not on the application for renewal made by the petitioner. In the present case, so far as the position of extension of lease is concerned, it is clear that the lease cannot be extended for the period beyond that period accorded by a fiction. One fiction cannot give rise to another fiction. In case the application for renewal of the lease, made by the petitioner is not decided, it would be open for the State Government to decide the same application or the petitioner would also be at a liberty to move a fresh application. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to cost. Certified copy be given on usual payment.