JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner submitted an application dated 11.11.2002 as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules of 1986' hereinafter) for grant of a mining lease pertaining to minor mineral marble near Village Bamniya, Tehsil Salumbar, District Udaipur. During pendency of the application aforesaid, the Superintending Mining Engineer, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur vide an order dated 15.1.2004 rejected an application preferred by Shri Rodi Lal son of Shri Deving Meena under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986 on the count that he failed to submit required No Objection Certificate from the Department of Forest, and also that the State Government vide circular dated 18.12.2000 imposed a ban for allotment of minor mineral mining leases in the scheduled area. Apprehending rejection of the application for the same reasons, the petitioner preferred this petition for writ. 2. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents on 7.4.2005 stating therein that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed being pre-mature. 3. After filing reply to the writ petition, the application submitted by the petitioner was also dismissed on 17.5.2005 on the count that no mining lease could have been allotted in the scheduled area in the light of ban imposed by the State Government under circular dated 18.12.2000 and also for the reason that the required No Objection Certificate was not submitted. 4. It is pertinent to note here that by moving a stay application, an interim order was sought by the petitioner relating to rejection of this application by order dated 17.5.2005, but the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 3.5.2007. Two applications preferred by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the petition also came to be rejected by this Court on 17.10.2008 and 19.3.2010. 5. Be that as it may, the State Government by an order dated 5.2.2008 revoked the ban for grant of mining lease relating to minor mineral in the scheduled area. However, while doing so, all the applications pending consideration till then were also rejected. A specific order relating to the petitioner's application was passed on 17.3.2008. 6. Despite the specific orders of rejection dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008, no steps are taken by the petitioner to challenge those. Neither amendment in the writ petition is made nor separate writ petition is preferred to challenge those orders. A specific order relating to the petitioner's application was passed on 17.3.2008. 6. Despite the specific orders of rejection dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008, no steps are taken by the petitioner to challenge those. Neither amendment in the writ petition is made nor separate writ petition is preferred to challenge those orders. It also reveals from perusal of order dated 17.3.2008, that a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the State Government to challenge the order dated 17.5.2005 and that revision petition came to be rejected under order dated 17.3.2008, but no challenge is given to these orders. In such circumstances, no relief as claimed for in this petition for writ can be given. 7. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy to challenge the orders dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008, subject to just objections available to the respondents.Petition dismissed. *******