By the Court.—We have heard Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of the State Government by which it has rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of mining lease of sand (minor mineral) in respect of plot No. 1910 M, area 10 acres in Lot No. II. The area was allotted to the petitioner, and mining lease was executed in 2001. The lease period came to an end in the year 2003, on which applications were invited. The petitioner claimed for renewal under Rule 6-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963, and alleges that since he has not breached any of the conditions or provisions of lease, he was entitled for renewal of the lease in accordance with law.

3. It is submitted that petitioner’ application was forwarded by the District Magistrate, with his recommendation dated 31.1.2007, to the State Government. The State Government had earlier approved the renewal but that on account of elections to the State Legislative Assembly, and change of Government of the State, the opinion in renewal of mining lease was changed. The State Government is now of the opinion that since the petitioner was granted lease in the year 2001, in pursuance to the preferential rights given to him, as he belongs to ‘Mallah’ caste, under Rule 9-A, and which preferential rights to the complete exclusion of persons belonging to other castes have been declared as ultra vires by Full Bench of the Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and another (in writ petition No. 256 (M/B) of 1997, decided on 27.3.2001), and Rule 9-A has since been deleted from the Statute, the renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered.

4. The District Magistrate, rejected the application for renewal of mining lease, on which the petitioner approached the Court in Writ Petition No. 76980 of 2005. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.12.2005, with the directions to the petitioner, to avail alternative remedy. The Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur by his order dated 16.6.2006, allowed the appeal, and while setting aside the order of the Licensing Authority dated 25.10.2005, by which the petitioner’s application was rejected, directed the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra/Licensing Authority, to decide the application of the petitioner, afresh in accordance with law. The Commissioner found that from the records, it is confirmed that for the subject mining lease in the year 2001, the petitioner was the only applicant. His application for renewal was wrongly rejected, treating him to have availed preferential rights under Rule 9-A.

5. The District Magistrate, in the fresh proceedings again reiterated that the petitioner has availed preferential rights under Rule 9-A when the notification was made on 19.1.2001, prior to deletion of Rule 9-A. Even if the lease deed was executed, after deletion of Rule 9-A, since the petitioner was considered for grant of lease under the preferential right provided under Rule 9-A, there is no justification for renewal of the lease, in his favour, after the law has changed and preference cannot be claimed, unless all other things are equal to the other claimants.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the only applicant in the year 2001. He did not avail the benefit of preferential rights, which according to him has been explained by the Supreme Court in para 10 of the decision in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and others, 2003 (5) SCC 341. He submits that there was no other applications from the persons of unreserved category, general category or preferential caste. Since the petitioner was the only person, and by the time the lease deed was executed, the Rule 9-A was struck down, the presumption that he was given preferential right, is wholly uncalled for. Even if there was preference applicable under the Rule, since the