JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dated 23rd March, 1996 [Ann.2] whereby sanction letter for allotment of quarry licence dated 6th April, 1995 was revoked and the revision preferred under R.47 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 was also rejected vide order dated 15th December, 1998. 2. Mining Engineer, Bijolia after delineating the plots at Village Sukhpura, issued a notification on 16th March, 1994 inviting application for grant of quarry licence. In all, 52 applications were received including application of petitioner in respect of Block No.75 and accordingly, lottery was drawn in accordance with R.27(3) of Rules, 1986. Name of petitioner emerged from the lottery drawn and thereafter sanction letter was issued to her on 6th April, 1995 [Ann.R/1]. However, in the order itself, it was mentioned that the petitioner has to deposit rent of block @Rs.5,000/- and annual security @Rs.1250/- within a period of 15 days from the date of order and after demarcation of the area concerned by Mines Foreman, she may get permanent pillars installed and after making compliance, she was required to obtain quarry licence from the office of the respondents. Since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of sanction order, a notice was issued on 20th June, 1995 [Ann.R/2] requiring to comply with the conditions of sanction order and to obtain quarry licence from their office. However, the petitioner deposited quarry licence fee on 20th July, 1995, but as alleged by the respondents that she did not collect quarry licence from the office of respondents despite notice was issued to her even after six months of earlier notice on 22nd December, 1995 [Ann.R/3] and since the petitioner failed to collect the quarry licence despite opportunity afforded, the respondents finally passed order revoking the sanction letter issued to her vide order dated 23rd March, 1996 and revision preferred by her against the order revoking sanction was also rejected by the revisional authority. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as demarcation of area under quarry licence is concerned, it was the requirement under R.25 to be fixed by the Mining Engineer. As such, in absence of proper demarcation of area under quarry licence, the respondents could not be said to be justified in revoking the letter of sanction issued in her favour. Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as demarcation of area under quarry licence is concerned, it was the requirement under R.25 to be fixed by the Mining Engineer. As such, in absence of proper demarcation of area under quarry licence, the respondents could not be said to be justified in revoking the letter of sanction issued in her favour. Apart from it, counsel further submits that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to her which was required under law and letter of sanction has been arbitrarily revoked by the respondents vide order dated 23rd March, 1996. Counsel further submits that since it has come on record that quarry licence for Block No.75, of which sanction at one point of time issued to her on 26th April, 1995, still is lying vacant and has also not been declared as free-hold so far. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if licence is now issued to her in compliance of letter of sanction Ann.1. 4. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that after letter of sanction was issued to the petitioner, ample opportunity was afforded to obtain the quarry licence and only in pursuant thereto she could be permitted to enter the area under quarry licence. In absence whereof, sanction order could not be kept intact for indefinite period and after affording opportunity to the petitioner to obtain quarry licence, but when she failed to comply with the conditions and obtain the licence as required under R.26 of Rules, 1986, at least the respondents cannot be held responsible to the extent that opportunity was not afforded to her and if there was any reason for which it could not be possible to obtain licence, it was expected from the petitioner to make representation to the concerned authority that too was never made at any point of time till passing of order revoking letter of sanction Ann.2. Counsel further submits that once the action has been taken by the respondents in compliance of provisions of Rules, 1986, no interference is required under writ jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 6. Counsel further submits that once the action has been taken by the respondents in compliance of provisions of Rules, 1986, no interference is required under writ jurisdiction of this Court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 6. The letter of sanction was issued to the petitioner in respect of Block No.75 emerged from the lottery drawn on 6th April, 1995 and as per letter of sanction, petitioner had to deposit rent @Rs.5,000/- and annual security @Rs.1250/- and after making other necessary compliance, quarry licence was required to be obtained from the authority under R.26 of the Rules, 1986. Reason that petitioner failed to get the area demarcated from the concerned Mines Foreman and to get the permanent pillars installed, may be one of the reason, which was taken note of by the respondents, but the ultimate fact remains that on two different occasions, notices were issued to the petitioner on 20th June, 1995 [Ann.R/2] and thereafter, on 22nd December, 1995 [Ann.R/3] and opportunity was afforded to her by the respondents to obtain the quarry licence in terms of letter of sanction issued in her favour way back on 6th April, 1995. Petitioner infact never responded in pursuant to notices [Ann.R/2 & R/3] served upon her and despite opportunity being afforded, petitioner fails to obtain the quarry licence from the office of respondents. 7. This Court finds justification in the submission made by counsel for respondents that sanction letter issued in favour of the petitioner in no manner could have been kept intact by the respondents for indefinite period. No reasonable justification has been forwarded by the petitioner as to what efforts were made after twice notices were served upon her and letter of sanction dated 6th April, 1995 was finally revoked by the respondents in the Month of March, 1996 almost after more than 10 months of the letter of sanction issued in favour of the petitioner. This Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents in revoking the letter of sanction passed by the respondents and the revisional authority has also not committed any error in rejecting revision preferred by petitioner. 8. This Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents in revoking the letter of sanction passed by the respondents and the revisional authority has also not committed any error in rejecting revision preferred by petitioner. 8. As regards submission made by counsel for petitioner with respect to areas, if not demarcated by the authority of the respondents that could not be said to be a basis for revocation, in opinion of this Court, will not be of any relevance for the reason that letter of sanction has coupled with certain other conditions which one was required to fulfil, if the petitioner failed to get the quarry licence issued in her favour in terms of sanctioned letter and conditions could not have been fulfilled, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary. 9. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******