ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue license to the petitioner after collecting the license fee. 3. As per the facts of the case in brief, the petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act whose members are persons who were engaged in the work of stone quarrying in the extent of 3 acres of land in survey No.38 of Melinakuruvalli, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga right from the period of their ancestors from past more than 45 years. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner Society are continuously making application to the respondents for issuance of license for stone quarrying. However, the respondents have not considered the petitioner's applications and have not granted license. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.50389/2019 which was rejected vide order dated 06.11.2019. However, it was clarified that the petitioner can make fresh application for the relief before the Competent Authorities. It was in pursuance of this, the petitioner gave representation but the respondents without considering the representations have now proposed to put the said area for auction, in which the members of the petitioner were doing quarrying work. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the license fee. However, the respondents be directed to consider the application and grant license to the petitioner Society. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the application of the petitioner cannot be considered as the quarrying license can be granted by auction only. The only exception is under Rule 3-F of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. However, under the said exception, it has been provided that the Deputy Director or Senior Geologist after approval of District Task Force Committee shall invite applications for grant of quarry lease specifying the area available for grant of quarrying lease, reservation of the block and its location with boundaries. 5. The submission is that no license can be granted on an application made by an applicant on its own and can be made only when the applications are invited and for which publication is to be made in two newspapers, then only such application can be considered. 6. 5. The submission is that no license can be granted on an application made by an applicant on its own and can be made only when the applications are invited and for which publication is to be made in two newspapers, then only such application can be considered. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision under which an application preferred by the petitioner Society on its own can be considered for grant of license or lease. Learned counsel tries to submit that some other Societies have been granted lease for quarrying purpose on an application moved by them. However, she has not been able to show any provision under which the Authorities can consider the application preferred by the Society on its own. 8. We are not satisfied that the application preferred by the petitioner on its own can be considered by the concerning Authority for grant of license or lease. 9. In view of the above, no relief can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.