JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K.K. Ojha, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to AG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure-4) passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No.261 of 2013, whereby inspite of the prayer made by the petitioner for allowing adjournment and opportunity for payment of the statutory dues lying against him up to period from January, 2010 to March, 2014 and also time for filing of an approved Mining Plan and Environmental Clearance Report, the aforesaid Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (a) Mining lease for stone was granted to the petitioner in respect of an area of 1.40 acres situated under Mouza-Salukchapra, District-Dhanbad in favour of one Dinbandhu Bhandari. (b) Vide deed dated 23.12.2011, the lease was transferred in favour of the petitioner for a term of two years with effect from 17.09.2011 to 20.01.2013. (c) Before expiry of the lease, the petitioner on 30.10.2012 made an application for renewal as per the provisions of Rule 23(1) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. (d) The application of the petitioner was required to be disposed of within a period of 180 days according to the said statutory Rule. (e) The counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-disposal of the application filed by the petitioner within time, the same stood deemed rejected due to efflux of time. (f) Against this order of deemed-rejection the petitioner filed a revision case being Revision Case No.261 of 2013 before the Revisional Authority which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.10.2014 on ground of non-payment of dues and also for non-submission of Mining Plan. (g) The counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dated 16.10.2014, the petitioner deposited the entire amount on different dates i.e. on 08.04.2015, 09.08.2016 and 16.01.2017 to the tune of Rs.1,49,674/- which were the dues lying against him. (h) On 22.09.2015 during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner got his Mining Plan approved by the competent authority. However, since the renewal application stands rejected on technicality, the approved Mining Planning cannot be considered by the competent authority. 5. (h) On 22.09.2015 during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner got his Mining Plan approved by the competent authority. However, since the renewal application stands rejected on technicality, the approved Mining Planning cannot be considered by the competent authority. 5. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have filed a counter-affidavit in the matter and have brought on record letter no.1768 dated 31.12.2012 issued to the petitioner by Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad wherein the petitioner was asked to submit various documents for renewal of lease. He referred to Para 7 of the counter-affidavit which reads as under: “That under Rule 23(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004, petitioner had to submit the renewal application at least 90 days prior to the date of expiry of the lease period in which he failed. He also failed in submitting the statutory papers like royalty clearance certificate, mine plan and environmental clearance. Petitioner was asked to submit the necessary papers and the cause of delay submission of his renewal application vide memo no.768/M dated 31.12.2012 but he failed to submit.” 6. The petitioner filed Revision Case No.261 of 2013 and vide order dated 27.08.2014, the petitioner was granted time for submission of Environmental Clearance Certificate and other statutory papers and the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2014. Thereafter, the matter was again adjourned on 22.09.2014 at the request of the advocate appearing for the petitioner before the revisional court with a clear indication that no further time will be given. 7. Counsel for the respondents further submits that as the application for renewal of mining lease filed by the petitioner was not complete in itself including the fact that the petitioner had not deposited the dues from January, 2010 to March, 2014, accordingly the application for renewal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in absence of the statutory documents required for the purposes of renewal of mining lease. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I see no reason to give any relief to the writ petitioner particularly in view of the fact that as per Rule 23 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 the application for renewal has to be filed with the required documents. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I see no reason to give any relief to the writ petitioner particularly in view of the fact that as per Rule 23 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 the application for renewal has to be filed with the required documents. Admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of all the required documents on the date of filing of application for renewal of mining lease and even before filing of the revision petition in which impugned order dated 16.10.2014 was passed. This Court also finds that there were dues standing against the petitioner from January, 2010 to March, 2014 and accordingly, it is not in dispute that even on the date of filing of the application for renewal on 30.10.2012, the petitioner had not paid the dues for the period from January, 2010 to 30.10.2012. Accordingly, on account of non-compliance of requirements for renewal of mining lease including non-payment of statutory dues, the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled for renewal of mining lease. The application for renewal was required to be filed as per the provisions of the said Rules and as the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for renewal on account of his own acts and omissions as on 30.10.2012, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. This Court is not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.