ORDER : Seeking a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner-respondent no. 2 for issuance of Letter of Intent to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner submitted application in Form-A on 19.03.2015 for grant of mining lease over an area of 5.30 acres pertaining to Khata no. 20, Plot no. 282 situated at Mouza-Loadih in PS-Patratu within District-Ramgarh. The said application was duly received in the office of respondent no. 3 under receipt in Form-B. The respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 20.03.2015 required the petitioner to submit certain documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's application stood dismissed for noncompliance of the statutory requirement and against the order of deemed refusal, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 129 of 2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2015. It is contended that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner was directed to take a decision within 90 days however, no decision has yet been taken by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, a direction needs to be issued to the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the petitioner's application. 3. As against the above, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned AAG opposing the prayer in the writ petition submits that the petitioner has no legal right to seek mandamus for grant of Letter of Intent for the mining lease for which an incomplete application was submitted on 19.03.2015. The learned A.A.G further submits that the petitioner cannot claim grant of mining lease, as a matter of right. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. A perusal of the writ petition discloses that the petitioner was directed vide letter dated 20.03.2015, to submit the Financial Capacity Certificate, Residential Certificate, Map showing the road leading to the land, Village Area Map, Income Tax Certificate etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to submit some of the documents within the statutory period. The petitioner admits that the inspection report by the Circle Officer and the Forest Clearance Certificate were issued after the statutory period. Order dated 06.10.2015 in Revision Case No. 129 of 2015 also discloses that the petitioner had failed to submit statutory papers. The petitioner admits that the inspection report by the Circle Officer and the Forest Clearance Certificate were issued after the statutory period. Order dated 06.10.2015 in Revision Case No. 129 of 2015 also discloses that the petitioner had failed to submit statutory papers. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not averred that after order dated 06.10.2015, he had furnished the documents which he could not furnish previously. Simply referring to the direction contained in order dated 06.10.2015 whereby, a direction was issued to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to pass an order within 90 days, the petitioner prays for a direction for issuance of Letter of Intent. The failure of the petitioner to submit the documents which he had failed to submit previously disentitles the petitioner to seek discretionary remedy from the Court. The petitioner has not challenged letter dated 20.03.2015 whereby, he was directed to produce documents. Without satisfying the requirements for grant of mining-lease, the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner must pass an order on his application. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has submitted all requisite documents as mentioned in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. At no point in time, the petitioner challenged the direction issued by the District Mining Officer to furnish the documents mentioned in letter dated 20.03.2015 and, the petitioner admits that it could not submit some of the documents. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner in Revision Case No. 129 of 2015 that the District Mining Officer had no jurisdiction to require the applicant seeking grant of mining lease, to produce the documents mentioned in letter dated 20.03.2015. 6. Considering the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.