S. S. JHA J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner society has filed this petition challenging the sanction of the lease of flag-stone quarry over Survey Nos. 850 to 853 in village Tyonda by the State Government. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society of workmen of scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. The petitioner society is also claiming lease over the society of Tyonda. The lease was originally held by one rajendra Singh. Rajendra Singh apphied for renewal of lease. Before the lease could be renewed, some orders were passed by the Collector cancelling the lease on account of non-payment of the instalments. The revision filed by Rajendra Singh was also rejected. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 5 society also applied for the quarry lease of the same land. The application of respondent No. 5 society was filed on 23-12-1993. While the application was being considered, the comments were sought from the respective officers. The matter was sent to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vidisha and Mining Inspector for enquiry. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies, and Mining Inspector submitted their report and both of them found that as per bye-laws of respondent No. 5 society, the society cannot extract mining work at Tyonda. Tyonda mine area does not fall within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 5 society with the head office at Barwai. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchat also opposed the grant of lease to respondent No. 5 society on the ground that if the lease is granted to respondent No. 5 society, local people of Tyonda will be unemployed. When application of the petitioner was under consideration, an application under rule 32-B of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') was filed by the respondent No. 5 society before the State Government. The State Government allowed the application and ordered that the lease be executed in favour of respondent No. 5 society. The order has been filed by the State as Annexure R - 5, ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the scope of Rule 32-B revision can only be filed against the orders passed by the authorities or against the proceeding of the society. The order has been filed by the State as Annexure R - 5, ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the scope of Rule 32-B revision can only be filed against the orders passed by the authorities or against the proceeding of the society. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No. 5 society at Barwai had no right to get the lease at village tyonda, which is beyond the jurisdiction of Barwai Tehsil. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also a society of workers of backward classes and since its application was pending, the petitioner ought to have been heard before grant of licence in favour of respondent No. 5 society, ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that on the date, on which respondent No. 5 had moved application for grant of lease, the petitioner society was not registered. The petitioner society was registered in December, 1995. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to claim the lease. The State Government has produced original record of the Collector, Mines, District Vidisha. I have perused the record, ( 6 ) RULE 32-B of the Rules is reproduced below : "32-B. Revision. The State Government may at any time, on its own motion for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any officer subordinate to it, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference the thereto as it thinks fit : provided that no order under the rule shall be passed against any person interested unless he has been given an opportunity to represent his case. " under these Rules the State Government may, on its own motion for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any officer subordinate to it, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order as it thinks fit. ( 7 ) IT appears that the petitioner society has moved an application under Rule 32-B of the Rules before the State Government challenging the regularity of the proceedings. ( 7 ) IT appears that the petitioner society has moved an application under Rule 32-B of the Rules before the State Government challenging the regularity of the proceedings. The respective parties have not filed copy of the memo of revision filed by respondent No. 5 before the State Government. However, copy of the revision was available in the file of the State Government. In the revision, it was prayed that the collector has committed an error by delaying the application of the petitioner-society for more than one and half years and a prayer was sought that the application be decided by the Collector, before 1st of June, 1995. It was further prayed that the petitioner's case he heard along with the case of contractor Rajendra Singh. In the revision, respondent No. 5 has not prayed for grant of lease, but by the impugned order the State Government has ordered for grant of lease to respondent No. 5 society. The State Government has not recorded any finding whether the Collector, vidisha has committed any irregularity or the proceedings before his were improper. The order is that by revision dated 30-5-1995 an application was filed for grant of lease to the respondent No. 5 society. This fact does not appear to be correct from perusing the memo of revision. The order also refers to an application dated 29-8-1995. However, copy of this application was not produced by respondent No. 5 and also by the State. Copy of this replication is also not in the record of the Collector, vidisha. The State has not sent its original file despite of orders of this Court and repeated opportunities. ( 8 ) THE only question arises in this case whether the State Government has exercised its jurisdiction in granting lease to respondent No. 5 society properly under the provisions of Rule 32-B of the Rules. It appears that the State Government has not perused the original record before considering the application for grant of lease to respondent No. 5 society. The different recommendations of various officers were also not considered and the question whether the application could be considered after lapse of one year was also not decided. Rule 8 of the Rules provides that the application for quarry lease shall be disposed of within one year from the date of its receipt and it shall be deemed to be refused, if not decided. Rule 8 of the Rules provides that the application for quarry lease shall be disposed of within one year from the date of its receipt and it shall be deemed to be refused, if not decided. Admittedly, the application of respondent No. 5 was filed on 23-12-1992. As such, the application was deemed to be refused within one year, that is 23-12-1994. Therefore, revision to the state Government under Rule 32-B on 30-5-1995 itself was not maintainable. No lease could be granted while exercising the powers under Rule 32-B of the Rules. Since under Rule 8 the application was deemed to be refused and in the absence of any appeal / revision against deemed refusal, the revision under Rule 32-B itself was not maintainable. The State Government has also not recorded any finding as to regularity of the proceedings. ( 9 ) IN such circumstances, the order passed by the State Government, Annexure r-5, is without application of mind. The order has been passed arbitrarily without going through the entire record and recommendations in respect of grant of lease to respondent No. 5. The order, Annexure R-5, therefore, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. ( 10 ) SINCE the application of respondent No. 5 society stood rejected, under rule 8, the case of respondent No. 5 can only be considered if an application is moved afresh by the society according to existing rules. Similarly, petitioner may also apply for grant of lease to the authorities and any other society eligible to apply for the grant of lease may also do so. The authorities, if such an application are filed, shall decide the application according to existing Rules. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The order granting lease to respondent No. 5 is quashed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed. .