JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the appeal. The learned Single Judge has not entertained the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the petitioner has an appropriate alternate remedy available under the statute by way of a revision under the provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. 2. We are of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with in this case. 3. The petitioner had made an application for grant of mining lease in respect of mineral chinaclay which is not a minor mineral. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Pallava Granites Industrial India (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., (1997) 4 SCC 559 . However, we find that the present is a case where the application was for grant of mining lease for a major mineral whereas the mineral in consideration before the Supreme Court was granite, a minor mineral Grant of lease or licence in respect of minor/mineral is governed by the Minor Mineral Concessions Rules framed by the respective State. The facts of the case stated in the judgment which arose in relation to an application for grant of surface rights over the lease area relates to a minor mineral and was governed by A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, clearly shows that it referred to grant being under some agreement of lease between the parties and in that a case right to excavate the mines from the land of private owner was based on the agreement by which grant of mining lease in respect of a major mineral and Mineral Concession Rules is subject to any such agreement between the parties. It is not in dispute that all rights of minerals vests in the State. The mineral resources through grant of mining lease which are regulated by the provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 to the extent the grant does not relate to the minor minerals, as minor minerals have been kept to be regulated by the State. 5. The mineral resources through grant of mining lease which are regulated by the provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 to the extent the grant does not relate to the minor minerals, as minor minerals have been kept to be regulated by the State. 5. In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Pallava Granites Industrial India (P) Ltd. v. Government of A.P. and others does not assist the petitioner in this case.The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******