Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.9.2001 (Annexure 3) passed by the Collector, Nawadah and communicated by the Assistant Mining Officer by its letter dated 11.9.2000 (Annexure 4) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for renewal of the quarry lease, has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. On 6th of July, 2000 a lease deed (Annexure 1) was executed for quarrying the minor minerals namely stone and murram from an area of 1.60 acres appertaining to Plot No. 1 Part, in Village Hadia in the district of Nawadah. According to the lease deed, the quarry lease was demised from 14th of April, 1991 for a period of ten years. It is the assertion of the petitioner that much before the expiry of ten years from the date of commencement of the lease on 9.12.2000, the petitioner deposited the required fee by treasury challan and filed application for renewal of the lease. Same was processed by the departmental authority and in view of the amendment brought by the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001, which came into force on 23.3.2001, the Collector, by order dated 5.9.2001, rejected the prayer for renewal of the lease and the said fact was communicated to the petitioner by Assistant Mining Officer by its letter dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure 4). 3. It seems that the District Co-operative Officer, by its letter 16.5.2002 (Annexure 6) also more recommendation for renewal of the lease but said recommendation was also not accepted. 4. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in case it is held that the lease had commenced from 14th of April, 1991, the question of its renewal shall not arise as Rule 22-A, as amended by Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Amendment) Rules, 2001 had come into force on 15.3.2001 and the petitioner may not legitimately claim the renewal. However, he contends that the lease, in fact, commenced from 6th of July, 2000 for a period of ten years and as such, it will subsist till 6th of July, 2010. Hence, there is no question of lease being renewed and the respondents are not right in not permitting the petitioner from carrying out the mining operations. However, he contends that the lease, in fact, commenced from 6th of July, 2000 for a period of ten years and as such, it will subsist till 6th of July, 2010. Hence, there is no question of lease being renewed and the respondents are not right in not permitting the petitioner from carrying out the mining operations. I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Singh. The lease deed entered between the parties had clearly stipulated that the same had commenced from 14th of April, 1991 for a period of ten years. On the face of the aforesaid stipulation it cannot be said that the same commenced from 6th of July, 2000. Not only this at one point of time the petitioner states that it commenced from 6th July, 2000 but at the same time, petitioner, on his own showing, had filed application for renewal of the lease treating the same to have commenced from 14th April. 1991. Thus, the petitioner has taken this peculiar stand that the lease had commenced not from 14th April, 1991 but from 6th of July, 2000, when the respondents have taken the decision not to renew the lease on account of amendment made in the rule, which does not deserve acceptance. 5. In any view of the matter, Mr. Singh contends that the respondents are under an obligation to make settlement in light of the amended rules but till date no such step has been taken. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the respondents is that the land has been recorded in the khatian as forest land and the State Government cannot make settlement unless the until it obtains consent of the Central Government as provided u/s. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Mr. Singh disputes the aforesaid assertion. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion, that in case, the State Government considers that it is a forest land and intends to make settlement, nothing prevents it from obtaining the consent of the Central Government. However, I am of the opinion that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to take steps for settlement in case it decides not to do the same. 6. However, I am of the opinion that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to take steps for settlement in case it decides not to do the same. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed with cost to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents which I assess at Rs. 500.00 .