ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29th December, 2017, contained in Memo No.06 dated 17th January, 2018, (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2- Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner has been disallowed. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.3- Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner made an application on 25th November, 2013 for grant of mining lease of stone and moram over an area of 4.80 acres of land, pertaining to Khata no.95, Plot no.172 and Khata no.111, Plot nos.209 and 217. Subsequently, in terms of the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules 2004’), it was reduced to the extent of 2.26 acres of land, pertaining to Khata no.111, Plot no.172(old)/217(new), situated at Mouja Chacheria, P.S. Ketar, District Garhwa. Pursuant to the said application, the respondent no.4- District Mining Officer, Garhwa vide letter no.582/M dated 27th November, 2013 sought a report from the Circle Officer, Ketar, who, accordingly, submitted his report vide letter no.19 dated 15th January, 2014. A report was also sought from the Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest Division, Garhwa vide letter no.581 dated 27th November, 2013. The Divisional Forest Officer submitted his report vide letter no.140 dated 18.1.2014. In the meantime, the said application of the petitioner dated 25th November, 2013 became infructuous being time barred in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision application, being Revision Case no.136 of 2014(M) before the respondent no.2, praying therein for extension of time, which was allowed vide order dated 11th August, 2015. In terms with the order dated 11th August, 2015, the petitioner took steps for approval of its mining plan, which was approved by the Deputy Director, Drilling-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Hazaribagh on 14th November, 2014 and subsequently environment clearance was also granted vide letter no.1220 dated 7th August, 2015. However, the application of the petitioner dated 25th November, 2013 again got infructuous being time barred due to non-disposal of the application within the extended period as per the order of the respondent no.2 dated 11th August, 2015. However, the application of the petitioner dated 25th November, 2013 again got infructuous being time barred due to non-disposal of the application within the extended period as per the order of the respondent no.2 dated 11th August, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of time before the respondent no.2, which was again allowed vide order contained in Memo no.215/MC dated 25th November, 2016 (Annexure-7). According to the petitioner, though it made several applications before the respondent no.4, requesting inter alia to issue letter of intent, the same were not responded. The petitioner once again preferred revision application before the respondent no.2. However, vide impugned order dated 29th December, 2017, the respondent no.2 has disallowed the revision application preferred by the petitioner in view of the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Amendment Rules 2017’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease for stone quarries on 25th November, 2013. The mining plan submitted by the petitioner was approved on 14th November, 2014 and subsequently the petitioner was granted environment clearance vide letter dated 7th August, 2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any laches on the part of the petitioner, rather due to inaction on the part of the district authorities, the petitioner’s application remained pending since 2013 and in the meantime the Amendment Rules 2017 was notified on 22nd February, 2017. 4. Learned A.C. to A.G., while opposing the writ petition, submits that the respondent no.2 has rightly passed the impugned order in view of the provisions of Amendment Rules, 2017. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner made an application before the appropriate authority for grant of mining lease on 25th November, 2013, but admittedly no letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner in this regard. Though the petitioner preferred revision application before the respondent no.2, being Revision Case No.136 of 2014 (M), yet the issue regarding non-issuance of letter of intent by the respondent no.3 was not raised before the said authority. Though the petitioner preferred revision application before the respondent no.2, being Revision Case No.136 of 2014 (M), yet the issue regarding non-issuance of letter of intent by the respondent no.3 was not raised before the said authority. Subsequently, by reasons of the provisions contained in Rule 9(1)(d) read with Rule 9(1)(e) and 9(12) of the Amendment Rules, 2017, all the pending applications for grant of mining lease got automatically cancelled except those wherein the letter of intents had been issued before notifying the said Rules. 6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision Case No.136 of 2014 (M), it appears that the revision application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed primarily on the ground that as per Rule 9(1)(d) read with Rule 9(1)(e) and 9(12) of the Amendment Rules 2017, notified vide notification no.149 dated 22nd February, 2017, all the pending applications for grant of mining lease over the government as well as tenancy land became ineligible by operation of law unless the letters of intent had been issued before notifying the Amendment Rules 2017. 7. Thus, this court is of the view that no error has been committed by the respondent no.2 in passing the impugned order dated 29th December, 2017, contained in Memo No.06/MC dated 17th January, 2018 (Annexure-9). The writ petition being devoid of merit is, merit is, accordingly, dismissed