ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- “a) To set aside order passed by Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and Geologist, Ramanagara (Respondent No.3) dated 28.03.2016 passed in No.68/14/2015-16/6979-83, produced at Annexure-L, rejecting the application of petitioner for grant quarry lease for building stone (M.Sand) over an extent of 21 acres of Sy.No.30 of Chikkamudawadi Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. b) To direct respondent No.3, to reconsider the application of petitioner at Annexure-A for grant of quarry lease for an area of 21 acres in Sy.No.30 of Chikkamudawadi Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara Distrit, afresh on merits. c) To issue any other suitable writ or order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's application for grant of quarry lease for building stone has been rejected on the ground that the area for which the quarry lease is sought for is a deemed forest. 3. Sri K.Dhiraj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of this Court dated 12.06.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016 (Dhananjay Vs. State of Karnataka and others), contends that in the said case, this Court has come to the conclusion that applications for quarry lease cannot be rejected only on the ground that the lands are deemed forests and as such, the present writ petition is required to be allowed and the rejection order be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the decision in the case of Dhananjay (supra) would not be applicable to the present matter for the reason that the rejection order has been passed prior to the amendment of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the said Rules of 1994’) which have come into force on 12.08.2016 and therefore, the application of the petitioner itself is not qualified to be a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. The points that arise for our consideration are:- 5.1 Whether the application filed by the petitioner is a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994 ? 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. The points that arise for our consideration are:- 5.1 Whether the application filed by the petitioner is a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994 ? 5.2 If an application is rejected prior to the coming into force of the amendment of said Rules of 1994, could the rejected application be considered to be a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(1) ? 5.3 What order ? 6. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the application filed by the petitioner is a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994 ? 6.1 Admittedly, the application of the petitioner has been rejected on 28.03.2006 i.e., prior to the amendment of the said Rules of 1994 which has come into force on 12.08.2016. Therefore, as on the date of coming into force of the amendment, the application had already been rejected. 6.2 In terms of Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994, an application would be a saved application if it was pending as on the date on which the amendment came into force. As observed above, since the application of the petitioner has been rejected, it cannot be said to be pending. Therefore, it is not a saved application under Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994. 7. Answer to Point No.2: If an application is rejected prior to the coming into force of the amendment of said Rules of 1994, could the rejected application be considered to be a saved application in terms of Rule 8-B(1) ? 7.1 Since the application of the petitioner was not pending and not saved as observed above, the question of considering the same in terms of Rule 8-B(1) of the said Rules of 1994 would not arise as Rule 8-B(1) makes it clear that all applications received and pending for grant of lease or license prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, shall become ineligible including the applications received for grant of mining leases of the minerals that are now classified as minor mineral. 8. 8. In the light of the above observations, even if the contention of the petitioner, by relying upon the decision in the case of Dhananjay (supra), is pressed into service to hold that the rejection order is improper on account of the area for which the quarry lease is sought for, cannot be considered to be a deemed forest since no such concept is in existence, the application itself not being a saved application under Rule 8-B(2) of the said Rules of 1994, the same cannot be directed to be considered by the Authorities by an order passed by this Court. 9. In view of the above, there would be no purpose served in considering the above writ petition and the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. The pending interlocutory applications does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.