M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) ALONG with writ petition No. 29776 of 1995 there are two other connected writ petitions etc. , writ petition nos. 29777 and 29778 of 1995. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he would not press writ petition nos. 29777 and 29778 of 1995 on the ground that they did not survive. ( 2 ) SO I will consider writ petition No. 29776 of 1995. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that writ petition No. 29776 of 1995 should be considered only in respect of s. No. 640. Writ petition No. 29776 of 1995 has been filed on 5-8-1995. ( 3 ) IN writ petition No. 29440 of 1995 filed under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ or Order directing respondent 2 to consider its application as per annexure-a. The petitioner has prayed that respondent 2 sould be directed to dispose of annexure-a in accordance with law. Annexure-a has been filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent praying for grant of quarry licence for a period of five years. Annexure-a relates to s. No. 642 of gumballi village, yelandur taluk, mysore district. The extent for which he wants quarry licence is 1 acre 9 guntas. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed the application-annexure-a before the 2nd respondent on 19-1-1991. Obviously this application has been filed by the petitioner under the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1969 (kmmc rules, 1969 ). ( 5 ) RULE 6 of the said rules says that an application for quarrying licence should be disposed of within three months from the date of its receipt and if it is not disposed of within that period, the application shall be deemed to have been refused. In view of this Rule it must be held that the application of the petitioner must be deemed to have been rejected on 19-4-1991. ( 6 ) RULE 61 of the above said rules provides for revision. The said rule, in so far as it is relevant for our present purpose, says that-"any person aggrieved by an Order of the competent officer issued under these rules may within two months of the date of communication, of such Order to him apply in form l to the controlling officer for revision of such order". The said rule, in so far as it is relevant for our present purpose, says that-"any person aggrieved by an Order of the competent officer issued under these rules may within two months of the date of communication, of such Order to him apply in form l to the controlling officer for revision of such order". when it is a case of deemed rejection there won't be any communication of such order. This prima facie leads to some confusion. The position in law is clarified in the explanation to Section 61 which says that for the purpose of this rule, where the competent officer has not been able to dispose of an application for grant or renewal of quarrying lease within the period specified thereof in these rules, the competent officer shall be deemed to have made and communicated the applicant an Order refusing or grant of renewal of such lease on the date on which such period expires. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner has not preferred revision petition as per Rule 61 of above said rules challenging the deemed rejection. ( 8 ) WHEN the petitioner has not availed himself of an alternative remedy, he cannot be granted any relief under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 9 ) THE petitioner applied for licence on 19-1-1991. It deemed stood rejected on 19-4-1991. He has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution only in the year 1995. There is inordinate delay. On this score also the writ petition has to be thrown out. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rule 6 of the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules which speaks of deemed rejection or refusal is unconstitutional. This argument need not detain the court. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Nookala Setharamaiah v. Kotaiah Naidu and others. The deemed refusal under Rule 57 (2) of the mineral concession rules, 1949 was considered and its validity has not been rejected by the Supreme Court. This argument need not detain the court. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Nookala Setharamaiah v. Kotaiah Naidu and others. The deemed refusal under Rule 57 (2) of the mineral concession rules, 1949 was considered and its validity has not been rejected by the Supreme Court. ( 11 ) RULE 59 (1) of 1994 rules says :"where any person who had already applied under the repealed rules for obtaining a quarrying lease or permit and such application is pending consideration immediately prior to the commencement of these rules, such person may, within thirty days from such commencement, apply afresh for grant or renewal of quarrying lease or permit". Rule 59 (2) says:"all applications made under the repealed rules for grant of a quarrying lease prior to the commencement of these rules (1994 rules) and pending consideration on the date of such commencement shall abate. . . . . ". in view of Rule 59 of the 1994 rules it must be deemed that the application of the petitioner has abated. On this score also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for 5th respondent argued at length on the validity of lease granted in favour of his client. In a petition filed by the revision petitioner the validity or otherwise of the lease granted in favour of 5th respondent need not be gone into. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons writ petition No. 29440 of 1995 has to be rejected. ( 14 ) WRIT petition No. 29776 of 1995 filed by the petitioner relates to s. No. 640 of gumballi village, yelandur taluk, mysore district. Annnexure-a has been filed by the petitioner on 19-1-1991. This writ petition also has to be rejected for the reasons given above. ( 15 ) THE petitioner is one of those who thrive on litigation. The fact that the petitioner is caught in the cobwebs of law is not a matter of regret. ( 16 ) WRIT petition nos. 29440 and 29776 of 1995 are rejected on merits. Writ petition nos. 29777 and 29778 of 1995 are rejected since they are not pressed. --- *** --- .