V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the demand notice at Annexure-E , dated 8-3-1995 calling upon the petitioner to pay the royalty and dead rent from 1993 to 1994 to the department of mines and geology. According to the petitioner-society, it is not liable to pay the said demand as exemption is granted to it by the government under Annexure-C , dated 7-3-1992 in exercise of the powers under rules 5 (ii) and 19 of the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1969, which rules are repealed by rules 1994. It is contended that the exemption granted in the said government order is saved in the 1994 rules. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The impugned demand notice is rightly issued on the ground that in 1994 rules, there is no provision for giving the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Annexure-C. Rule 58 of the 1994 rules reads thus. "68. Repeal and saving. The Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1969 are hereby repealed: provided that the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the repealed rules, and anything done or any action taken thereunder shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding Provisions of these rules". (emphasis supplied) from the underlined portion of the above proviso, it is clear that the previous operation of repealed rules and anything done shall be deemed to have been done under the corresponding Provisions of 1994 rules. But, 1994 rules do not provide for exemption from payment of royalty as was provided in Rule 5 (ii) of the 1969 rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim exemption granted to it earlier by virtue of the repeal and savings provision in 1994 rules. ( 3 ) UNDER Annexure-C petitioner-society was granted exemption for payment of security deposit and royalty only. In the impugned demand notice it is stated that dead rent from 1993 to 1994 it also not paid and the tri-monthly and annual reports, are also not submitted by the petitioner. Instead of complying with the requirements of the impugned notice, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on untenable grounds. Since the petitioner has no right to seek exemption claimed, this petition is misconceived and is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. Instead of complying with the requirements of the impugned notice, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on untenable grounds. Since the petitioner has no right to seek exemption claimed, this petition is misconceived and is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .