ORDER : 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition. 2. On the factual aspects as indicated in the petition, it appears that on 17.11.2014, the petitioner filed an application in Form AQL along with security deposit, seeking grant/execution of quarry lease to extract Pink Granite, a specified minor mineral, under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, over an area of 3 acres in Government land bearing Sy.No.22 of Marithimmanahalli Village in Madhugiri Taluka, Tumkuru District. The said application remained pending for long. However, it appears that the petitioner himself made a request to the respondent No.3-Director and Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, to return/refund the security deposit under his communication dated 03.03.2018, whereupon the respondent No.3 issued the refund order on 23.07.2018. 3. The petitioner would submit that the said refund order had never been implemented and, therefore, he thought it fit to pursue the QL application in view of several orders passed by this Court in other matters issuing writ of mandamus; and as per the letter dated 06.10.2018, he expressed intention to pursue the QL application. 4. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3-Director to grant/execute quarry lease over the area applied for pursuant to the application made by him on 17.11.2014. 5. It is noticed from the averments taken and the material placed on record that the petitioner indeed sent a communication dated 03.03.2018 seeking refund of the security deposit, which was clearly indicative that he was withdrawing from the application. While accepting his request, refund order was also issued by the respondent No.3 on 23.07.2018. 6. It is true that in certain other writ petitions, this Court has directed the authorities concerned to consider the pending applications expeditiously. The petitioner has referred to the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.43235/2017 and connected matters and seeks the order of similar nature. The petitioner has also referred to his communication dated 06.10.2018, stating that he was not interested in withdrawing his QL application and would like to go on with the same. 7. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not filed copy of the communication dated 03.03.2018 on the record of this petition. The petitioner has also referred to his communication dated 06.10.2018, stating that he was not interested in withdrawing his QL application and would like to go on with the same. 7. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not filed copy of the communication dated 03.03.2018 on the record of this petition. On being queried in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may obtain copy under the Right to Information Act and then submit the same before the Court. Learned counsel has attempted to argue that such communication was sent under a mistaken impression. Even these submissions do not find mention in the averments as taken in the petition. The relevant part of the averments occurring in paragraph 5 could be taken note of as under:- “05. Most respectfully, it is further submitted that this Petitioner requested 3rd Respondent Director to return/refund the Security Deposit as per his letter dated 03.03.2018, in view of inordinate delay in getting the Quarry Lease as applied for. However, this Petitioner is issued with a Refund Order dated 23.07.2018 by rd Respondent Director, which never came to be implemented. As such, this Petitioner thought fit to pursue the QL Application, in view of several Orders of Writ of Mandamus passed by this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, this petitioner as per his letter dated 06.10.2018 expressed his intention to pursue the QL Application as per law, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D & E respectively. It is also further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to Respondents by processing the pending QL Application, since the amount of Security Deposit has not been refunded as yet.” 8. Although the petitioner has not filed copy of the communication dated 03.03.2018, it is evident that he had consciously made the prayer seeking to withdraw from the application dated 17.11.2014 for grant of quarry lease over the said land bearing Sy.No.22 of Marithimmanahalli Village in Madhugiri Taluka, Tumkuru District and sought refund of the security deposit amount of Rs.30,000/-; and the authorities indeed passed the order on 23.07.2018 while accepting his request. 9. 9. When the petitioner had consciously submitted that he was withdrawing from the application and sought for refund of the security deposit amount; and refund was indeed ordered, in our view, the application was no more surviving and it was not available for the petitioner to turn around and to suggest in the month of October, 2018 that now he was not interested in withdrawing. The withdrawal of the application, for all practical purposes, had been complete with passing of the refund order dated 23.07.2018. 10. However, when it has been indicated that the said amount of Rs.30,000/-has not been received by the petitioner yet, we have queried the learned High Court Government Pleader in that regard. He submits that such refund would be immediately made, if not already made. In this regard, the petitioner may supply his bank account number to the authorities concerned, who would be expected to refund the amount immediately upon receipt of bank account number. 11. So far as mandamus sought for in this petition is concerned, we are not inclined to issue the same for the reasons foregoing. 12. The petition is required to be, and is, hereby dismissed, subject to the observations and requirements foregoing.