JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel, 1. In this application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has sought for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed the original authority to decide the application of the appellant for grant of mining lease on merits and in accordance with law. After the remand and during the pendency of the application of the petitioner, there was change in the policy and the procedure to be followed for grant of mining lease. Following the same, the claim of the appellant petitioner was rejected. The petitioner filed the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3918/95 challenging the order of rejection of his application for grant of mining lease. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 13.12.1996. Against the said order, this appeal is filed. As already stated above, in filing the appeal, there was a delay of 141 days. The appellant has sought to explain the delay saying that he is a tourist guide and he was out of station in the tourist season. 3. On perusal of the application, the reasons given therein, in our view, are not sufficient to condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal and that apart, looking to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that any injustice was done to the appellant petitioner. The order of the learned Single Judge is consistent with the well settled principles of law. 4. Thus, viewed from any angle, we do not find any merit in the application, it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant at this stage states that in case the appellant makes a fresh application for grant of mining lease, it may be considered on its own merits and this order should not come in the way of consideration of fresh application for grant of mining lease on merits. We make it clear that this order does not come in the way of consideration of a fresh application, if any made by the appellant, on its own merits and in accordance with law.Application Dismissed. We make it clear that this order does not come in the way of consideration of a fresh application, if any made by the appellant, on its own merits and in accordance with law.Application Dismissed. *******