An application for renewal of a mining lease must be made within the prescribed time and there is no provision for deemed refusal of renewal applications. A writ of mandamus can only be issued to compel the performance of a duty enjoined by law, and a challenge to the grant of a lease after a long lapse of time is not maintainable as it would be against public policy to reopen the matter.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal and the writ petition being connected with each other have been heard to gether and are disposed of by this common judgment

( 2 ) WHILE the appellant in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition No. 824/1989 is the same, the fourth respondent in the writ appeal, N. Kanta Reddy figures as third respondent in the W. P. No. 824 of 1984 but for the sake of convenience would be referred in the judgment as the fourth respondent in bom the cases. The facts relating to the case are that the appellant got lease of 3. 6 acres of mining area containing iron ore of inferior quality on 12-4-1955 for a period of 30 years with renewal clause in the lease deed for 30 years more. The first 30 years were to expire on 11-4-1985 but the renewal application was made by the appellant on 21-5-1984. As no orders were communicated, the appellant took it to be a deemed refusal under Rule 24 of the Mineral concessions Rules, 1960 and went in revision before the Central Government which was rejected. Thereafter, the appellant filed on 24-9-1985 W. P. NO. 10849 of 1985, out of which the present appeal arises, seeking the relief of mandamus to the State Government to consider his applicationfor renewal. He also moved W. P. M. P. No. 14969 of 1985 in the writ petition in which order was passed on 8-10-1985 allowing him to continue the mining operations. The fourth respondent filed w. P. M. P. NO 1186 of 1988 to get himself impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition and also to vacate the interim stay granted in W. P. M. P. No. 14969of 1985. In that application the fourth respondent claimed to have been granted lease over an extent of 26. 80 acres ins. No. 29 of Boyanapalli village for 20 years under G. O. Ms. Np 392 dated 16-9-1985. The application to be impleaded as party was allowed but so far as the request for vacation of stay was concerned, no orders were passed and instead the W. P. No. 10849 of 1985 was put up for bearing. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge who also observed that it was unnecessary for him to go into the question of the validity of the lease granted in favour of the fourth respondent as the illegatity of grant of that lease is not subject matter of the proceedings. After thejudgment, the appdlant filed W. P. No. 824of 1989 assailing the lease granted in favour of the fourth respondent

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition No. 10849 of 1985 came to the conclusion that the renewal of the application having been made not within the time prescribed i. e. , not prior to twelve months before the expiry of the lease, there was no proper application for renewal of the lease which could be considered. As regards the question of deemed refusal of the application, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the provisions relating to deemed refusal of the renewal application had been deleted from the Rulesfor which there could not be any question of a revision against an order of deemed refusal.

( 4 ) MR. E. Ayyapu Reddy, theleamed senior counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the judgment, urges two questions. The first is that in deciding the case the learned Single judge did not take into consideration the provisions of themining Lease (modification of terms) Rules, 1956 (for short 1956 Rules ) which required the existing leases on the date of the rule to be modified by the Controller so as to bring it into confirmity with the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 and that had it been done, then only the provisions of Rule28 (l)of the Mineral Concession Rules requiring the application for renewal to be made atieast 12 months before the date when the lease is deemed to expire would have been applicable to the lease of the appellant but that having not been done, the original terms of the lease reqiriring the application for renewal to be made prior to the expiry of six months before the lease was operative and that the applicatio