ORDER Menon, Ag. C.J. -- 1. This petition is pending since 2011. None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.9.2015 and it was restored on 1.10.2015. Thereafter, it is being listed continuously for final hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have gone through the record and heard Shri Anand Barnad, learned counsel for the respondents/State and dispose of this writ petition based on material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Challenging the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Union of India rejecting the revision petition filed under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the orders dated 19.5.2006 and 11.2.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 under rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Petitioner was granted a mining lease for an area measuring 0.516 hectares for the purpose of excavation of Pyroflide and Dyspore for a period of 20 years vide lease granted on 28.6.1995. It is said that petitioner was peacefully carrying out mining operation and excavating the minerals as per the mining lease. It is said that till 2005 petitioner cleared all the dues and nothing was outstanding against the petitioner even the dead rent as on 13.4.2005 was also cleared. Petitioner was granted transit pass and various other facilities in April 2005 to carry out mining operation and abruptly by the impugned orders dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure P-6) exercising powers under rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, it is said that a declaration was made declaring that the lease for the area in question has lapsed. It was said that before doing so no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted and the representations filed by the petitioner were also rejected. Revision petition was filed under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules and the same is also dismissed, hence this petition was filed. 5. In the writ petition and in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner two grounds are canvassed. Revision petition was filed under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules and the same is also dismissed, hence this petition was filed. 5. In the writ petition and in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner two grounds are canvassed. The first ground is that before taking the impugned action, no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was granted and the order adverse was passed behind the back of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is said that the action is unsustainable. That apart, it is stated in the writ petition that the lease was unauthorisedly stated to have lapsed under rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules on account of the fact that the petitioner did not carry out mining operation continuously for a period of one year or discontinued the mining operation after its commencement for a period of one year. It is stated that various transit pass and gate passes have been filed as Annexure P-4 issued in May, 2005 and December, 2005 which goes to show that the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not carrying out mining operation is incorrect. Challan for deposit of dues like dead rent, gate pass and transit pass are filed to show that the reasons for holding the lease to have lapsed is not correct and that the Authorities have passed the order not only without granting opportunity of hearing but also stating incorrect factual aspects of the matter, therefore, this order is unsustainable. It is further pointed out in the writ petition that the revision application is also dismissed by the Union of India without taking note of all these factors. 6. Shri Anand Barnad, learned Government Advocate has refuted the aforesaid and argued that as per rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, if the mining operation is not commenced within a period of one year from the date of execution of the lease or if it is discontinued for a continuous period of one year after the commencement of such operations, the State Government has the power to declare such mining lease as lapsed and once the lease is lapsed the lease-holder has the right to get the lease re-commenced or re-issued by complying with the requirement of rule 28(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 7. 7. Shri Anand Barnad, learned counsel invites our attention to the assertion made by the petitioner in the revision petition filed before the Central Government and the reasons mentioned in paragraph 6 and 7 therein which read as under :- 6- ß;g fd blh nkSjku xzke bZefy;k ds Bkdqjksa }kjk [knku ij vuf/kd`r dCtk dj pkjksa rjQ ls jkLrk can dj nsus ds dkj.k yxHkx 1 lky rd fookn fNM+k jgk ftl dkj.k mR[kuu~ dk;Z can jgkA xk¡o ds Bkdqj ds izHkko'kkyh ,oa lkeUrh izo`fr ds FksA ftl dkj.k muds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djuk eSaus mfpr ugh le>kA 7- ;g fd [knku esa ls fudkl dk jkLrk u gksus ds dkj.k Bkdqj lkgc ls fookn FkkA vkilh le>kSrs ds rgr Bkdqj lkgc dks eq¡g ekaxh jde nsus ds i'pkr~ vc fookn lqy> x;k gSA vkSj [knku ls fudklh ,d lky ckn 'kq: gks pqdhAÞ to say that on petitioner's own showing it is clear that for a period of one year or more petitioner was prevented from carrying out mining activity due to various reasons indicated in the memorandum of revision as reproduced herein above and as no application or request under rule 28(2) was made, the Authorities have not committed any error in rejecting his claim. 8. Shri Anand Barnad, learned counsel invites our attention to para 5 of the order passed by the revisional authority wherein this aspect of the matter has been considered and submit that a Government has rightly rejected the claim on the ground that merely by filing certain transit pass and gate pass it cannot be held that mining was being carried out when on the petitioner's own admission it is established that he was unable to carry out mining activity for more than one year for various reasons as admitted. That being the position, petitioner should have taken steps under rule 28 (2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, but the petitioner has not taken any steps to revive the lease which was discontinued due to non-carrying out of excavation activities. As the petitioner has not taken any steps in this regard, the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 9. As the petitioner has not taken any steps in this regard, the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 9. Shri Barnad, learned counsel further argued that on petitioner's own showing, petitioner having discontinued the mining operation for more than one year and as he had not submitted any application for revival of the mining lease under rule 28(2), no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and on this count alone interference by this Court in this matter is not called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent/State and perused the record. 11. The petitioner was granted the mining lease and on account of the fact that he discontinued the mining operation for a period of one year and no action was taken by the petitioner to revive the lease, the lease was declared as lapsed under rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules by the Union of India. The only ground canvassed by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was issued to him and the order was passed behind the back of the petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner by submitting challan or transit pass and gate passes tries to demonstrate that the reasons for discontinuation of the mining operation in exercise of powers under rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules is not existing, the petitioner was carrying out mining operation and there was no discontinuation of mining operation for the last two years. 12. Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 contemplates that on grant of mining lease where mining operations are not commenced within a period of one year from the date of its execution or is discontinued for a period of one year after the mining activities are commenced, the lease would lapse. That apart if after execution of the lease the mining activities are carried out but they are discontinued thereafter continuously for a period of one year, the State is authorised under law to declare that the mining lease as lapsed on account of its discontinuation. Therefore, under rule 28(2) the lease-holder can seek for re-commencement of the mining operation and explain the authorities the reasons which prevented him from carrying out the mining operation. 13. Therefore, under rule 28(2) the lease-holder can seek for re-commencement of the mining operation and explain the authorities the reasons which prevented him from carrying out the mining operation. 13. In the present case, the petitioner in para 6 of the revision petition has made a specific assertion that the petitioner could not carry out mining operation for a period of one year because certain unauthorised persons have taken the possession of the mining area and illegally blocked all access to the mining area and, therefore, he was prevented from carrying out mining operation. The petitioner on his own showing admits about his inability to carry out mining operation and based on this assertion in para 5 of its order, the revisional authority has considered this aspect of the matter and come to the conclusion that when the mining operation was stopped, then the petitioner has a remedy under rule 28(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules to submit an appropriate application to the State Government for revival of mining lease but the petitioner has not submitted any application to the State Government explaining the reasons for discontinuation of mining operation and on this count the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision application. 14. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no error has been committed by the revisional authority. The petitioner has not carried out mining activity for one year and that the petitioner did not take steps as contemplated under rule 28(2). In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the revision application, the petitioner admits about stoppage of mining activity for one year, that being so in view of rule 28 (2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, the petitioner should submit an application to the State Government explaining the reasons for not carrying out mining activity and seek revival of the mining lease but the petitioner having not done so, the revisional authority has dismissed the petition. We see no error in the finding of the revisional authority. 15. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. We see no error in the finding of the revisional authority. 15. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. It is a case where the petitioner did not carry out the mining activity for a period of one year and did not avail the remedy or the advantage available to him of resorting to the procedure contemplated under rule 28(2) and did not seek revival of the mining lease and on this count the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned order and accordingly there is no perversity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. 16. With the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere into the matter. 17. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.