JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had one year's quarry licence in the year 1980 which was to expire on 9.4.1981 and could be renewed on making of an application. However, he did not make any renewal application until 1993. The application was, therefore. rejected by the Mining Engineer, Bijolia on 16.4.1993. A revision against the said order was also rejected by the Revisional Authority vide his order dated 3.8.1993 for the same reason. One of the additional reasons which weighed with the learned Additional Director that the area in question was subjected to orders of maintaining the status quo at the relevant time. 3. Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition before the State, which has also been rejected on 14.5.1996. Before the State Government, the petitioner offered to pay 20% by way of penalty over the interim rent payable. This offer was not accepted by the State and the application was rejected. 4. Apparently, no ground is made out to interfere by issue of writ of certiorari/mandamus in this case. The order alleged to be passed in similar case in Jay Lal's case is of dated 1.10.1990. Prima facie, the order in Jay Lal's case goes to show that the facts of the case were entirely different and the i very same land to which Jay Lal was claiming renewal stood completed and Jay Lal's case has been settled by that order 5. The petition. therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his case 5 may be considered afresh. It is for the petitioner to make proper application under the relevant rules, for grant of quarry licence. If such anWrit Petition Dismissed. *******