JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.4.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, deciding the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 under Rule 77 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Rules’). 3. Brief facts of the case, which emerged from pleadings of the parties are; that the District Magistrate issued a notice dated 19.1.2005 for availability of area for grant of mining lease under Rule 72, which also included an area of 34.54 acres of land of village Marad Vindwaliya, district Kushi Nagar. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the said notification. The respondent No. 4 also made an application dated 21.2.2005 in response to the said notice. The District Magistrate issued another notice on 1.10.2005, notifying the same area of 34.54 acres of land of village Marar Vindwaliya, in response to which the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 moved applications. The respondent No. 4 after issuance of notice dated 1.10.2005, filed an appeal before the Commissioner being appeal No. 4 of 2005, challenging the notice dated 1.10.2005. The case of the respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner was that no decision having been taken for grant of lease in response to the notice dated 19.1.2005, the District Magistrate could not have issued a fresh notice. Comments were called for by the Commissioner from the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate in his comments, stated before the appellate authority that in view of Rule 8(2)(a) of the 1963 Rules, since six months period has elapsed from receipt of the earlier applications, no consideration could be made on the earlier applications due to which fresh notice has been issued. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal taking the view that the view of the Collector that since six months’ period has elapsed from receipt of the earlier applications hence, they be treated to be rejected, is contrary to the provisions of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal taking the view that the view of the Collector that since six months’ period has elapsed from receipt of the earlier applications hence, they be treated to be rejected, is contrary to the provisions of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. The Commissioner disposed of the appeal vide impugned order dated 4.4.2006 and directed the District Magistrate to decide the applications received after notice dated 19.1.2005 and thereafter, if necessary proceed to decide the applications received after notice dated 1.10.2005. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order, contended that fresh notice having been issued on 1.10.2005, earlier notice dated 19.1.2005 shall be deemed to be cancelled. He further contended that respondent No. 4 having applied in response to the first notice, he had no right to file the appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, submitted that issuance of the notice dated 1.10.2005 was contrary to 1963 Rules. There is no such provision under Rule 8 which provides that after expiry of six months, the applications shall stand rejected. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 8 has been amended on 1.3.2001 and the earlier Rule which provided for rejection of the application after six months’ no longer remains in operation. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. Before considering the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, Rule 8 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 needs to be noticed in extenso. Prior to the amendment, Rule 8 was as follows : “8. Disposal of application for mining lease.—The State Government or the officer authorised by it in this behalf may, having regard to the provisions of these rules and after making such further enquiries as may be deemed necessary, refuse to grant the mining lease for the whole or a part of the area applied for and for such period as it may consider necessary. (2) An application for mining lease shall be disposed of within twelve months from the date of its receipt or deemed receipt or deemed receipt under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, as the case may be. (2) An application for mining lease shall be disposed of within twelve months from the date of its receipt or deemed receipt or deemed receipt under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, as the case may be. (3) If any application is not disposed of within 12 months as specified in sub-rule (2) it shall be deemed to have been refused.” After amendment, Rule 8 is to the following effect : “8. Disposal of application.—(1) The State Government or the authority authorised by it in this behalf may subject to provisions of these rules and after making such further enquiry as it may consider necessary— (a) in case of application for grant of a mining lease refuse or grant the mining lease for the whole or part of the area applied for and for such period as it may consider proper. (b) in the case of application for renewal of a mining lease, refuse or renew the mining lease for the whole or part of the area applied for and for such period, not exceeding the period of the original lease, as it may consider proper: Provided that where an application for grant or renewal of a mining lease is refused or the area is reduced, reasons therefore shall be recorded and communicated to the applicant.” From perusal of the above amended rule, it is clear that earlier provision, which provided for disposal of the application within a fixed period and in case, the application was not disposed of, the same was deemed to have been refused, no longer continues. The District Magistrate in his comments which were sent to the appellate authority, clearly mentioned that fresh notice dated 1.10.2005 has been issued in view of Rule 8(2)(a). The Commissioner in his order has held that there is no such provision under Rule 8(2)(a) that application filed six months before shall be deemed to be rejected. From the above, it is clear that District Magistrate proceeded to issue fresh notice on 1.10.2005 on the premise that earlier applications which were received in pursuance of the notice dated 19.1.2005 stood rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring into my notice any amendment in the Rules after the amendment made on 1.3.2001, providing that applications not considered after six months shall be deemed to be rejected. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring into my notice any amendment in the Rules after the amendment made on 1.3.2001, providing that applications not considered after six months shall be deemed to be rejected. 7. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that since fresh notice has been issued earlier notice stood cancelled automatically, cannot be accepted. The reasons has come on the record for issuing the fresh notice and if the said reason is contrary to the law, it cannot be said that Commissioner has committed any error in directing for consideration of the applications which were received in response to the notice dated 19.1.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also is not right in his submission that merely because respondent No. 4 applied in pursuance of fresh notice dated 1.10.2005, he was precluded from filing appeal. Despite making application, there was no prohibition in filing the appeal by the respondent No. 4. No error could be pointed out in the order of the Commissioner dated 4.4.2006, justifying any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. ————