ORDER : Sameer Jain, J. The instant petition is filed against the order impugned dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Central Government whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 against the order dated 09.12.2007, as passed by the State Government, was dismissed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the order impugned is wholly contrary to and/or inconsistent with the applicable facts, law and material on record, thereby is liable to be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate upon the said claim, it was submitted that the petitioner's renewal application was dismissed on account of merely procedural shortcomings, which cannot be considered to be valid grounds of rejection, as the same can be rectified subsequent to the grant of renewal, having made the said renewal contingent upon the fulfilment of the noted deficiencies. In this regard, reliance was placed upon Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter, Rules of 1960). In support of the submissions made herein-above, learned counsel relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 . 3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. R.P. Singh, appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the Central Government, while dismissing the revision application of the petitioner, has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. In support of the said claim, it was submitted that as per Rule 24A of the Rules of 1960, the application for renewal has to be filed in a specific format, within a stipulated time. Moreover, the said application for renewal inherently carries with it the furnishing of several approvals and/or documents, such as the mining plan, financial assurance and forest clearance, which were not procured and thereby, not produced/submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that renewal of a mining lease cannot be claimed as a right, as the renewal rests within the discretion of the Central as well State Government, subject to the fulfilment of the requisite and mandatory terms and conditions by the party seeking the said renewal. Learned counsel further submitted that renewal of a mining lease cannot be claimed as a right, as the renewal rests within the discretion of the Central as well State Government, subject to the fulfilment of the requisite and mandatory terms and conditions by the party seeking the said renewal. Hence, relying upon the submissions made herein-above, learned Additional Advocate General averred that the order impugned is wholly justified and as a result, does not call for any interference of this Court. 4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar. 5. Preceding to the discussion on merits, this Court deems it fit to concisely note the germane factual considerations, instrumental for the efficacious disposal of the instant petition. They are noted as under:- 5.1 That the petitioner-Shri. Modi Mineral Grinding Mills Pvt. Ltd. was granted mining lease for the mineral 'dolomite' by the State Government of Rajasthan for an area encompassing 259 hectares in Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The duration of the said lease was 20 years commencing from 27.10.1977. 5.2 That being desirous of renewal of the mining lease in toto, the petitioner applied for the grant of first renewal on 06.08.1996. However, in lieu of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court, vide orders dated 12.12.1996 and 16.05.2004, the petitioner vide letter dated 08.05.2006, reduced the area for renewal of mining lease to an area encompassing 23.89 hectares only. 5.3 That the State Government issued a notice dated 09.04.2007 qua the petitioner, requiring compliance of certain twin deficiencies within a period of 30 days, failing which, the renewal application so preferred by the petitioner would be rejected and/or dismissed. The said twin deficiencies enumerated therein are noted herein-under: (i) Forest clearance could not be obtained because of non-submission of revenue record and conduct of joint demarcation desired by the Mining Engineer, Sikar vide his letter dated 19.07.2006. (ii) Approved Mining Plan and Financial Guarantee. 5.4 That subsequently, vide order dated 19.12.2007, the State Government rejected the renewal application filed by the petitioner, citing non-compliance/curing of the twin deficiencies enumerated in the notice so issued. 5.5 That being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter Rules of 1960). 5.4 That subsequently, vide order dated 19.12.2007, the State Government rejected the renewal application filed by the petitioner, citing non-compliance/curing of the twin deficiencies enumerated in the notice so issued. 5.5 That being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter Rules of 1960). 5.6 That after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the Central Government vide order impugned dated 07.01.2011, dismissed the revision application and upheld the order passed by the State Government. As a result, being aggrieved of the rejection and/or dismissal of the renewal application of the mining lease, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 6. Having taken note of the factual matrix of the instant petition along with the order impugned co-jointly read with the arguments advanced herein, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the instant petition, for the following reasons, namely:- 6.1 That pursuant to the petitioner having surrendered and/or reduced the area for renewal of the mining lease, vide letter/notice dated 19.07.2006, the petitioner was directed to submit the revenue record within a period of 15 days for the advance joint demarcation of the area for which the renewal was sought. However, despite the pre-intimation, the petitioner failed to comply with the express stipulation enumerated in the said notice and admittedly failed to submit the requisites. 6.2 That as a consequence to the non-compliance of the initial notice dated 19.07.2006, the State forwarded to the Directorate a proposal for the cancellation of the petitioner's renewal application, which was subsequently affirmed vide letter dated 20.02.2007. As a result, the State Government issued a 30 days' notice dated 09.04.2007, under Section 26(1) of the Rules of 1960 to the petitioner, for compliance of the deficiencies in the petitioner's renewal application, as noted above, failing which the renewal application would stand cancelled. 6.3 That in only minimal and partial compliance of the notice dated 09.04.2007, qua deficiency no.1, the petitioner got the advance joint demarcation of the applied renewal area done on 08.05.2007. However, despite the same, the said deficiency was not cured in toto as the confirmation with regard to the non-forest land of the applied area remained awaited. Therefore, as such, the compliance of deficiency no.1 was only partially cured. However, despite the same, the said deficiency was not cured in toto as the confirmation with regard to the non-forest land of the applied area remained awaited. Therefore, as such, the compliance of deficiency no.1 was only partially cured. Whereas, qua deficiency no.2, the mining plan as well as the financial assurance were admittedly not submitted by the petitioner, thereby, failing to comply with the second deficiency in toto. 6.4 That having admittedly defaulted in complying with the deficiencies timely, as pointed out by the State, on two separate occasions i.e. qua the notice dated 19.07.2006 as well as the notice dated 09.04.2007, the petitioner being a defaulter, cannot claim renewal without adequately having fulfilled the requisites for the grant of renewal. Moreover, upon a perusal of the order impugned, it becomes abundantly clear that even till the passing of the order impugned dated 07.01.2011 i.e. four years after the issuance of the notice dated 09.04.2007, no mining plan for the area sought to be renewed was submitted before the State authorities, despite several communicated and/or reminders to that effect. 6.5 That the delay caused on part of the petitioner in complying with the notices qua the deficiencies in the petitioner's renewal application could not have been condoned by the State authorities, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner had been issued a number of notices/reminders by the respondent-State. However, in blatant ignorance of the notices/reminders, no active steps were taken by the petitioner to adequately respond to the same and cure the defects. The inaction on part of the petitioner in effectuating compliance is crystallized by the factum of the petitioner not having submitted the requisite mining plan even until the Year 2011 i.e. after four years of issuance of the notice dated 09.04.2007 and rejection/dismissal of the renewal application. 6.6 That the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (Supra) is misplaced, especially in light of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the case as well as the non-compliance on part of the petitioner in fulfilling the requisites, despite having been served multiple reminders and given adequate opportunity to do so. 6.7 That considering the fact that the petitioner admittedly failed to make compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by way of the noticed dated 09.04.2007 among others, the rejection of the renewal application was a natural consequence of the said failure. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the order impugned is a well-reasoned speaking order, whereby after a consideration of material aspects, a logical conclusion has been realized. Therefore, relying upon the observations made herein-above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant petition. 8. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.