Judgment:- D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petitioner was a person. Who was aggrieved by issue of notice dated 30.10.2009 calling upon ther petitioner to stop mining activities in 5 acres of land in Sy.No.39 of Thippanahalli Village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, for the reason that petitioner was not the authorized lessee of the subject land had been leased by the state Government for the purpose of extraction of quartz mineral etc. 2. This notice had been questioned by the write petitioner by filing a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 3. However, the Central Govermment as per the order dated 27.06.2011, copy produced as Annexure –A to the writ petition, dismissed the revision petition. It is aggrieved by this order of the Central Government dismissing the revision petition the the present writ petition by the recipent of the original notice dated 30.10.2009 seeking the following prayer:- “(a) Call for the records which ultimately resulted in passing impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27th June, 2011 in Revision Application No.13/10/2010 –RC-1 and the communication bearing No. DMG:ML-2370 – 2009 – 10:3616 dated 30.10.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure – A1. (b) Issue an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order at Annexure-A dated 27th June, 2011 in Revision Application No.13/10/2010– RC–1 passed by the 1st respondent. (c) Issue an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned communication bearing No. DMG: ML-2370-2009-10:3616 dated 30.10.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure-A 1. (d) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” In the writ petition relief is also sought for, for issue of consequential directions. 4. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submission of Sri. (d) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” In the writ petition relief is also sought for, for issue of consequential directions. 4. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submission of Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel is that the writ petitioner has sought for transfer of subject lease, which had been originally granted in favour of one Sri T.Sharath Babu, that there are enabling provisions under the Mineral Concession Rules, (1960) to transfer the lease of this nature, and as such the said lessee has transfer the lease to the writ petitioner and it is on the strength of such a transfer, the writ petitioner is carrying on the mining activity and therefore, the notice calling upon the writ petitioner to stop mining activities is not warrented and deserves to be quashed etc. 5. Notice had been issued to the respondents – State and Central Government and its officers. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the State Government and its officials contending inter alia that the lease granted in favour of the original lessee for a period of 20 years has not been registered: that even the permission for transfer also as a consequential transaction is not registered that in such circumstances, the petitioner had carried on mining activity as a person, who is not authorized in law, therefore, the notice is valid in law etc. 6. Sri Chidanandayya, learned counsel, on the other hand, submits that the state Government and its officials may be directed to re-validate the transfer deed and execute a fresh lease, which prayer is strongly opposed by the learned AGA; that in respect of the lease, which has already expired there is no question of re-validating and that too, for the purpose of effecting transfer only to some other person like the petitioner. 7. While there may be enabling provisions for transfer of a valid lease deed during its subsistence, but once the lease period expires, the matter comes to an end and there is no question of revalidating/renewing, a lease that has expired for the purpose of transfer. 8. We do not find any need or necessity either to quash the order passed by the Central Government or to issue any writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner. 8. We do not find any need or necessity either to quash the order passed by the Central Government or to issue any writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner. We do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the main matter itself having been dismissed I.A.I/2012 for amendment of prayer does not survive for consideration, it is accordingly dismissed.