JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned G.P.-V appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 16.10.2014 passed in Revision Case No.240 of 2013. 2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted mining lease for stone pertaining to an area of 2 acres on plot no. 2916 (P) situated at Mouza Kharkhar of the District-Koderma in terms of the provision of Mines and Minerals (R&D) Act, 1957 and Bihar Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 for the term of five years with effect from 20.10.1987 to 19.10.1992. The said lease was further renewed for ten years with effect from 20.10.1992 to 19.10.2002. He further submits that in view of rule for renewal, the petitioner could not file renewal application within 90 days prior to the lapse of lease. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma vide order dated 19.12.2002 rejected the renewal application no. 20 dated 02.12.2002 on the ground of non-clearance of royalty dues. Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.12.2002, the petitioner filed Revision Case No. 21 of 2003, which was also rejected by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 03.12.2004 on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared the dues of royalty in respect of other lease areas which were held by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner again filed renewal application No. 04 of 2013, which was also rejected. Being aggrieved with the deemed rejection, petitioner filed Revision Case No. 240 of 2013, which was rejected by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 16.10.2014, against which, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1198 of 2005, which was dismissed. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The application of the petitioner was of the year 2013, whereas, subsequent amendment in the Rule has come into effect in the year 2014. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed relevant documents and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 3. Per contra, Mr. The application of the petitioner was of the year 2013, whereas, subsequent amendment in the Rule has come into effect in the year 2014. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed relevant documents and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 3. Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that mining lease for stone over an area of 2 acres of land situated on plot no. 2916 at Mouza Kharkhar, District-Koderma was earlier given to the petitioner. He was granted lease for a term 20.10.1987 to 19.10.1992 and, thereafter, the said lease was renewed for 10 years from 20.10.1992 to 19.10.2002. The petitioner filed application for renewal of lease on 05.02.2013, which was deemed to be rejected, as the same was filed after expiry of period under Rule 23(1) of the Jharkhand Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, against which, the petitioner filed a revision case, which was also dismissed, against which, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. He further submits that as per Rule 23(1) of the Rules, 2004, the petitioner had to submit his application at least 90 days prior to expiry of lease. 4. The period of lease was expired on 19.10.2002 and the application for renewal of lease was filed by the petitioner on 05.02.2013. In spite of that, respondent no.3 vide his letter dated 16.02.2013 sent notice for filing required documents, but the petitioner had not produced any document. Thereafter, his subsequent petition for renewal of lease has also been dismissed after expiry of period prescribed under law. He further submits that the petitioner is a defaulter and he has not complied the earlier demand within time and in that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances and perusing the impugned order, it transpires that there is amendment in the Rules in the year 2014 and in that view of the matter, a person who is seeking lease he is required to take clearance from the competent authority. The petitioner has not approached the authority for renewal of the lease 90 days prior to expiry of lease, which is condition precedent under Rule 23(1) of the Jharkhand Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The petitioner has not approached the authority for renewal of the lease 90 days prior to expiry of lease, which is condition precedent under Rule 23(1) of the Jharkhand Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, this order will not be an impediment, if the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the authority afresh.