ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “I) ISSUE an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue corrigendum within a time frame amending the period of the lease in the Quarrying Lease Deed No.797 dated 30.05.2006 produced at Annexure-“a” directing the respondents to treat the lease as granted for a period of 20 years in place of 5 years from the date of original grant i.e., 30.05.2006. (II) Declare by appropriate writ that the rejection of renewal application filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2011 at Annexure-‘B’ has no consequence in so far as the grant of deemed extension of the term of the quarrying lease period in consonance with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessions Ruled, 1994 as amended by Notification dated 12.08.2016. (III) GRANT such other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner had been granted a quarrying lease in respect of 2.20 acres in Sy.No.47 of Naduvanahllai Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District for a period of five years with effect from 30.05.2006 for the purpose of quarrying building stone which is a non-specified minor mineral, as classified under the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the KMMC Rules’). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application for renewal of the lease made by the Petitioner on 21.02.2011 in terms of Rule 21(2) of the KMMC Rules, came to be rejected on 31.03.2015. 4. The contention of Sri.B.S.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner is that 4.1. irrespective of the rejection of the said renewal application on 31.03.2015, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the quarrying lease on account of deeming fiction under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules as amended in the year 2016. 4.2. in view of the said deeming fiction of extension of the lease which has expired or about to expire, the petitioner’s lease, irrespective of the rejection, is also deemed to have been extended. 5. 4.2. in view of the said deeming fiction of extension of the lease which has expired or about to expire, the petitioner’s lease, irrespective of the rejection, is also deemed to have been extended. 5. Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate would however, submits that on the application of the petitioner being rejected, the same would get covered under sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules, since the said Rule makes it clear that in the event of rejection of an application for extension, the same would not get covered under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules. Since sub-Rule 8 of Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules is a non obstante Rule, it makes sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules inapplicable to such a rejected application. 6. In rejoinder, Sri.B.S.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules relied upon by learned Additional Government Advocate is applicable only to minerals which have been re-classified in the year 2015. In that, if the mineral had been a major mineral and classified as a minor mineral, vide Notification issued by Government of India bearing No.S.O.423 (E) dated 10.02.2015, sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules would come into operation. If the mineral for which, the lease has been granted prior to coming into force of the amendment was a minor mineral, the provisions of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules would not be applicable. 7. Heard Sri.B.S.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 8. The short question, which would arise for consideration is: “Whether sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules is applicable only to minerals which have been re-classified from major mineral to minor mineral, vide Notification issued by Government of India bearing No.SO 423 (E) dated 10.02.2015 or would it apply to all applications which have been rejected prior to coming into force of the amendment to the KMMC Rules in the year 2016 with effect from 12.08.2016?” 9. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules reads as under: “The provisions of this rule, notwithstanding anything contained therein, shall not apply to a quarrying lease or license or mining lease of minerals now classified as minor minerals vide notification of Government of India bearing No.S.O.4523(E), dated 10.02.2015 granted before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, for which renewal has been rejected, or which has been determined, or lapsed.” 10. A perusal of the said Rule indicates that the said Rule starts with a non-obstante clause thereby, the said sub-Rule would be applicable irrespective of the other sub-Rules prior to it. 11. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules indicates that in the event of a renewal being rejected or a lease being determined or lapsed, the earlier provisions would not be applicable as regards minerals which have been classified as minor minerals vide Notification issued by Government of India bearing No.S.O.423 (E) dated 10.02.2015. 12. A reading of the said provision does not indicate or give raise to a presumption of re-classification of the minerals from major minerals to minor minerals but, only indicates the minor minerals classified on 10.02.2015 to be a reference point for the application of the said sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules. In that, so long as the minor mineral is found mentioned in the Notification dated 10.02.2015, if the application had been rejected prior to coming into force of the amendment to the KMMC Rules in the year 2016 or if the said lease has been determined by an action on the part of the Authorities or in the event of the lease having lapsed without a renewal being granted, then the earlier provisions of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules would not be applicable. 13. In view of the above, in the present case, the application filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2011 having been rejected on 31.03.2015, as on the date on which the amendment came into force, it is clear that the said application stood rejected and was not pending. 14. 13. In view of the above, in the present case, the application filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2011 having been rejected on 31.03.2015, as on the date on which the amendment came into force, it is clear that the said application stood rejected and was not pending. 14. Once the application has stood rejected, the conditions prescribed under sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules which is a non obstante provision would kick in making the petitioner disentitled for any consideration in terms of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules. Thus, we are unable to accept the submissions made by Sri.B.S.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. We answer the point raised above by holding that the provisions of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8-A of the KMMC Rules would be applicable to all minerals which have been classified as such in Notification issued by Government of India bearing No.S.O.423 (E) dated 10.02.2015 and not only to minerals re-classified on that date. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.