Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. (2). In all these matters, applications for grant of mining lease of mineral marble were pending consideration with the Govt. In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 65A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short `the Rules hereinafter) brought into force the marble policy w.e.f. 6.10.94. The applications for grant of mining lease moved by the petitioners, were pending consideration either because they were not disposed of or were pending on account of the remand orders made by the appellate or revisional authority. These applications were rejected in view of clause (9) of the Marble Policy wherein it has been provided ``Applications which have not been disposed of till the date of issue of this notification shall be rejected and application fee shall be refunded. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the peti- tioners are in no way responsible for non-disposal of their applications till the Marble Policy came into force and further their applications should not have been rejected on the sole ground of the applications being pending when they were ready and willing to fulfil all the requisite conditions laid down in the Marble Policy. Their applications should have been considered as if they have been filed under the provisions of the Marble Policy. (3). Under the Marble Policy, a mining lease or quarry licence in the Government land shall be granted by auction, tender or application as decided by Government after delineation of plots of prescribed size. Therefore, the Government is authorised to delineate the plots of a prescribed size and thereafter adopt the method for grant of a mining lease by auction, tender or application as it deems fit and decides. Clause (2) provides restrictions on grant and renewal of mining lease/quarry licence. Clause (5) lays down the condition that in the existing areas of mining lease/quarry licence the new lease/licence shall be granted by auction on the condition that mine machinery as prescribed in the notification in the Policy shall be deployed. Where the size of a plot available for grant is one hectare or more, the same may be granted by open auction. Where the size of a plot available for grant is one hectare or more, the same may be granted by open auction. Clause (6) provides that twenty five per cent of the plots delineated in the Government land shall be kept reserved for applicants who have installed marble processing plant or tiling plant or have taken effective steps to instal such plants. Clause (7) provides conditions for the grant of mining lease/quarry licence. Therefore, it is clear from the Marble Policy that method for grant of a mining lease has to be determined by the Government. The Policy provides restrictions for lease. There are conditions prescribed under clause (7) which shall attach to grant of mining lease. All this clearly indicates that for grant of a mining lease under the Marble Policy, the Government has to undertake a fresh procedure and the mining lease cannot be granted on the basis of the applications which have been filed before the Marble Policy came into force. That apart, the validity of clause (9) of the Marble Policy is upheld by a Divison Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865/95 decided on 4.5.95, Rajsamand Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1). That being the case, for grant of a mining lease after coming into force of the Marble Policy, the person is required to make fresh application and the application pending consideration, would stand disposed of. The petitioners applications filed prior to coming into force of the Marble Policy, cannot be considered. (4). In State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone (2), the Apex Court has considered the arguments of the appellant that the application for renewal of lease pending for long time cannot be rejected on the basis of rule 8C, which has come into force on a later date, the Court held that no one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an a aplication 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 anyone, 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. (5). In P.I.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (3), it has been held that the applicant for licence has no vested or accrued right to grant of licence in accordance with the policy obtaining at the time of submitting the application. The Government has a power to withdraw the old policy. The Court would not bind the Government to its previous policy unless the policy is vitiated by mala fides or abuse of power which the applicant must plead and prove to the satisfaction of the Court. (6). The different provisions made in the Marble Policy and the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court make it abundantly clear that the petitioners do not have any right to get their applications disposed of in accordance with the rule prevalent at the time of making the application nor they can ask for disposal of their applications filed prior to the Marble Policy being effected, in accordance with the Marble Policy. The Marble Policy having specifically laid down the condition that all pending applications shall stand rejected. There is no allegation made in the petitions that the Marble Policy is vitiated by amala fides or abuse of the power by the State Govt. That being the case, the contention raised by the petitioners, has no force. (7). It is submitted by the counsel that in some of the matters i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1569/95, 1633/96 and 3579/95, the petitioners were directed to deposit the demarcation fee and, therefore, in fact and in law, they have been granted mining lease prior to the Marble Policy came into force, the execution of the lease by the State Govt. was a ministerial act, which was to be performed by the State, therefore, their applications for grant of mining lease could not have been rejected. was a ministerial act, which was to be performed by the State, therefore, their applications for grant of mining lease could not have been rejected. Sub-rule (1) of rule 19 of the Rules says that where the lease has been granted or renewed under these rules, the grantee shall pay demarcation fee, get the area demarcated, deposit the security alongwith one quarterly instalment of annual dead rent and submit requisite stamps for execution of formal lease deed in Form No. 5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of order for grant. The petitioners submission is based mainly on interpretation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 where the words used are ``where the lease has been granted, the grantee shall pay demarcation fee and, therefore, he submits that when the petitioners have been asked to deposit the demarcation fee, it shall be deemed that the lease has been granted. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 has to be read as a whole and further with other sub- rules of Rule 19 and cannot be read in isolation. Under sub-rule (1), it is for the leasee to submit for stamps for execution of lease deed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order for grant. Therefore, the rule contemplates issuance of order for grant. Sub-rule (2) provides that the lease deed shall be prepared for execution within three months from the date of order of grant and the competent authority shall sign the lease deed on behalf of Government of Rajasthan. Again the lease deed has to be presented within particular period from the order of the grant. Then sub-rule (3) of rule 19 directs that the lease deed shall be registered by the grantee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the lease deed from the authorities of the Mining Department and returned back to the authority. Sub-rule (4) is material. Then sub-rule (3) of rule 19 directs that the lease deed shall be registered by the grantee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the lease deed from the authorities of the Mining Department and returned back to the authority. Sub-rule (4) is material. It lays down that where the grantee fails to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (1) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order for grant, or he fails to execute the lease within three months from the date of receipt of order for grant or fails to return the registered lease documents within a period of two months provided under sub-rule (3), the order granting the lease may be revoked and amount of security and dead rent deposited by him may be forfeited. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 reserves the power with the State to revoke if the acts required to be performed, are not performed by a person in whose favour an order for grant of lease was issued. Sub-rules (1) & (2) provide limitation from the date of the order and for non-performance of those acts, the power can be exer- cised for revocation of the lease. That denotes that the grant of mining lease requires an order for grant of lease and mere direction to deposit the demarcation fee can not be constituted to be an order passed for grant of mining lease. It is made further obvious from rule 20, which says that the currency of lease shall be from the date of execution of the lease agreement unless otherwise stated. So the lease shall commence only on execution of the lease deed, which shall be only after the order for grant of lease is issued. It is nowhere provided in the Rules that the applicant gets a right of allotment after the demarcation is made. Normally, the demarcation is being done for the purpose of ascertaining as to which area the app- licant shall be granted a mining lease. In the absence of the order, it cannot be said that the simple act of deposition of the demarcation fee creates a right in favour of the petitioners to get the mining lease executed in their favour. (8). It is contended by Mr. In the absence of the order, it cannot be said that the simple act of deposition of the demarcation fee creates a right in favour of the petitioners to get the mining lease executed in their favour. (8). It is contended by Mr. Thanvi, counsel for the petitioners that one Akshay Kumar was granted lease on the basis of the application filed prior to the Marble Policy came into force by order dated 25.10.94 Annex. 10. Further in case of one Ganga Bai, the State Govt. relaxed clause (9) of the Marble Policy and granted her lease. The petitioners cases are in no way different than those persons and they should have also been granted lease by giving relaxation of clause (9) of the Marble Policy. (9). Rule 65 of the Rules authorises the Government to relax the provisions of the Rules for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Marble Policy being framed under the Rules, the State Govt. is competent to exercise the powers under Rule 65 in regard to the Marble Policy also. The exercise of the powers by the State Govt. is controlled and checked by virtue of the restrictions imposed on the State Govt. that the powers to relax has to be exercised after recording the reasons in writing. There is no illegality committed by the State Govt. if the powers are exercised under Rule 65 relaxing clause (9) of the Marble Policy. The power to relax the application of the Marble Policy has to be on consideration of individual case and not as general policy. Each relaxation requires reasons to be recorded. The petitioners cannot claim any right of relaxation because relaxation was made in two cases. Each individual case is required to be considered on its own merits in the given facts and circumstances of that case. There is no general right of relaxation provides under Rule 65. It is not the case of the petitioners that the powers so exercised by the State Govt. in respect of two cases, was exercised for mala fide reasons or for extraneous consideration. The petitioners, if they think, were entitled for relaxation, should have approached the Government in that regard for exercise of the powers under rule 65. But simply because relaxation has been granted in favour of two persons, the petitioners cannot claim any right of relaxation in their favour. (10). The petitioners, if they think, were entitled for relaxation, should have approached the Government in that regard for exercise of the powers under rule 65. But simply because relaxation has been granted in favour of two persons, the petitioners cannot claim any right of relaxation in their favour. (10). For the reasons stated above, the petitions are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.