JUDGMENT Abhay Gohil, J. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Writ Appeal 601/06, Diwan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. Both the appeals are filed u/s 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005, against the order dated 21-11-2006 passed by Writ Court in Writ Petitions No. 2967/06 and 5124/06. Brief facts of the case are that one quarry lease for extraction of flag stone situated on land Survey No. 952, having an area of 2.141 hect. In village Jakhoda, Tehsil and District Gwalior was granted to one Manish Nayak for a period of ten years commencing from 24-8-1995 to 23-8-2005. However, Manish Nayak transferred the said lease to appellant Diwan Singh on 27-9-2004 for the remaining period till 23-8-2005. The lease period was expiring on 23-8-2005. As per Rule 17 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for brevity the 'rules of 1996'), the application for renewal of quarry lease was required to be filed at least one year from the date on which the lease was due to expire, i.e., 23-8-2005, therefore, admittedly the application for renewal was required to be filed on 22-8-2004 but the application was filed on 28-10-2004. Because the application for renewal was not filed before one year as required under Rule 17, the Collector vide his order dated 22-7-2005 rejected the renewal application. Against which appellant Diwan Singh filed an appeal before the Director, Geology and Mining, M.P., Bhopal. Vide order Annexure P/2 dated 22-8-2005 the appeal was allowed by the Director. Thereafter, vide order dated 20-7-2006 Annexure P/3 the lease was renewed. In the meantime, one Malanpur Stone Company through its partner Smt. Pyaribai filed an application on 24-8-2005 for grant of mining lease of the same survey number and same area. One Smt. Meera also filed application on 17-5-2005 for grant of lease of the same area and survey number. Malanpur Stone Co. as well as Smt. Meera both also preferred appeal against the order dated 22-8-2005 passed by Director, Geology and Mining, before the State Government on the analogy that they are also the applicants for the quarry lease on the aforesaid survey number, therefore, they have right therein but the State Government vide order dated 17-3-2006 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure P/1. Against which Malanpur Stone Co. filed Writ Petition No. 2967/06 and Smt. Meera also filed Writ Petition No. 5124/06. Against which Malanpur Stone Co. filed Writ Petition No. 2967/06 and Smt. Meera also filed Writ Petition No. 5124/06. By common order passed on 21-11-2006 learned Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 5124/06 filed by Smt. Meera and Writ Petition No. 2967/06 filed by M/s Malanpur Stone Co., holding therein that there is mandatory provision in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996 that every application for renewal of quarry lease should be filed at least one year before the date on which the lease was due to expire, therefore, the application filed by Diwan Singh could not have been allowed and it was also held that the aforesaid order dated 20-7-2006 was passed during the continuance of stay order passed by this Court on 3-7-2006 in W.P. No. 2967/06 and set aside the Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 in Writ Petition No. 4627/06 on merits. Against which Diwan Singh has filed these two appeals. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant argued and submitted that on 22-8-2005 when the Director, Geology and Mining allowed the appeal of Diwan Singh, the application of Malanpur Stone Co. was not pending and the application filed by Smt. Meera on 17-5-2005 was premature, therefore, they were not having any right to file appeal before State Government and to challenge the order of Director in appeal dated 22-8-2005 and the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in issuing writ of mandamus and has also wrongly set aside the order Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3, whereas the appeal was allowed by Director, Geology and Mining and thereafter vide order dated 20-7-2006 lease was renewed in his favour and both the orders are legal and justified. There is no provision in the rules to follow consequences if renewal application is not filed within one year and in any case as the lease was transferred in his favour, no period of one year had left. There is no provision in the rules to follow consequences if renewal application is not filed within one year and in any case as the lease was transferred in his favour, no period of one year had left. Considering the aforesaid fact, the Director, Geology and Mining in appeal vide order dated 22-8-2005 (Annexure P/2) has rightly condoned the delay as the patta was transferred on 27-9-2004 in favour of appellant Diwan Singh and before that it was not possible for him to apply for renewal and, therefore, the Director rightly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector and Collector vide order dated 20-7-2006 rightly renewed the lease in favour of the appellant and the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in setting aside the aforesaid order. In reply, Shri Vivek Jain Advocate appearing for appellant Malanpur Stone Company and Shri S.P. Jain, Advocate appearing for Smt. Meera Gurjar, submitted that the provisions of Rule 17 are mandatory and if the application is not filed within one year from the date of expiry of the lease, there is no power under the rules for condonation of delay and the fact would be that there cannot be any renewal in favour of the concerned party. After expiry of the lease period the rules would be applicable for grant of fresh lease in favour of any of the applicants. Their submission was that on 23-8-2005 the lease was expired and he rightly applied on 24-8-2005 for grant of lease in their favour as right has incurred in their favour and they were having locus to file the appeal but the State Government wrongly rejected their appeal and the order of the State Government was absolutely erroneous, and the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in interpreting Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996. Under Rule 35 all the conditions and liabilities which the transferor was having in respect of such quarry lease are binding on the transferee and it has to be considered that he has accepted the same and first proviso to Rule 35(1) of the Rules of 1996 is very clear. Shri S.P. Jain, also adopted the aforesaid argument and submitted that Rule 12 is applicable only on minerals mentioned in Serial Nos. Shri S.P. Jain, also adopted the aforesaid argument and submitted that Rule 12 is applicable only on minerals mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 4 of Schedule I and the present mineral is mentioned as Item No. 5 in Schedule I. As such, as per Rule 12 application of Smt. Meera was also maintainable and has also supported the arguments and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard and considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Originally the lease of the aforesaid quarry was granted in favour of Manish Nayak for the period of 10 years commencing from 24-8-1995 and that was due to expire on 23-8-2005, but after obtaining permission the lease was transferred on 27-9-2004 in favour of appellant Diwan Singh. It is also true that the proviso of Rule 35(1) says that permission may be granted to the lessee by sanctioning authority on the condition that the transferee has accepted all the conditions and liabilities which the transferor has in respect of any such quarry lease and appellant Diwan Singh who is the transferee was legally entitled for renewal but as has been held by learned Single Judge that the provisions of Rule 17 which are mandatory were also applicable on him and lease can only be renewed when application for renewal of quarry lease shall be made at least one year before the date on which the lease was due to expire. We again refer Rule 17 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under: 17. Renewal of quarry lease.-- Every application for the renewal of a quarry lease shall be made at least one year before the date of which the lease is due to expire. Since the aforesaid provisions were binding on the appellant and admittedly the application was filed by him on 28-10-2004 and the period was to expire on 23-8-2005 and under Rule 17 the application was not filed at least one year before, on or before 22-8-2004, thus, there was delay of around 2 months in filing renewal application. There is no provision for condonation of delay of this period and the provisions of Rule 17 are mandatory, in which word "shall be made" has been used. Thus, in view of the above, learned Single Judge has not taken any unreasonable view in the matter. There is no provision for condonation of delay of this period and the provisions of Rule 17 are mandatory, in which word "shall be made" has been used. Thus, in view of the above, learned Single Judge has not taken any unreasonable view in the matter. If the renewal application is not filed at least one year before the date on which the lease was due to expire, the normal interpretation would be that he will not be entitled for renewal but his application shall be considered for grant of fresh lease in his favour. This is a disputed question whether writ of mandamus is available to a person, who has no right or acquired right subsequently in the matter to file appeal against a particular order. On 22-8-2005 when appeal of appellant Diwan Singh was allowed by Director, Geology and Mining, the lease period of the appellant had not expired and application of Malanpur Stone Company was also not pending, therefore, both the parties were not entitled to file any appeal, but after expiry of lease period, their applications were pending as prospective lessee, therefore, if they were not entitled to file appeal, they were entitled to file writ petitions. Admittedly, the question before the Writ Court was whether the order dated 22-8-2005 by which the period was condoned was legal or not and when there was stay order on 3-7-2006 that no third party right shall be created, whether the Collector was justified in passing the order of renewal of lease on 20-7-2006. None of the parties addressed us on the question whether the stay order dated 3-7-2006 was communicated to Collector on or before 20-7-2006 or not, but if the Rules of 1996 expressly make a provision that the application for renewal shall be made at least one year before and the same being mandatory provision is required to be followed and if any illegality is perpetuated, any of the applicant, who is aspirant, was entitled to draw that illegality before the Writ Court and since under Rule 35 all the conditions and liabilities are binding on the transferee, the condition of Rule 17 was also binding on the appellant. The question that at the instance of Malanpur Stone Co., who was the petitioner in the writ petition, the mandamus cannot be issued was also not raised before the Writ Court. The question that at the instance of Malanpur Stone Co., who was the petitioner in the writ petition, the mandamus cannot be issued was also not raised before the Writ Court. It was argued that the learned Single Judge has only given direction in favour of Malanpur Stone Company and Mrs. Meera and has not given any direction for consideration of application of the appellant for grant of fresh lease. To that extent the submission of the counsel for the appellant appears to be legitimate, therefore, such a direction can be given that the application of the appellant who was holder of lease be also considered for grant of quarry lease afresh considering the fact that he was lessee of the same quarry and there was a technical lapse on his part and under particular circumstances he could not file application for renewal. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of these writ appeals with this slight modification that the Collector now shall consider all applications for grant of lease including the application of the appellant afresh on merits and decide the same in accordance with law considering the fact that appellant was holder of lease of the same quarry and under particular circumstances' could not file application for renewal in time. Parties to bear their own costs.