Premature challenge to mineral concession rules failed where no lease existed and the application had lapsed under new policy.

The text explains that a challenge to mineral concession rules and a marble policy was premature because no mining lease had yet been granted, so the stage for fixing dead rent had not arisen. It also notes that the applicant's pending request had lapsed or stood rejected when the new policy came into force, and that the State could lawfully frame policy governing disposal of rights in minor minerals. In that setting, no mandamus could issue to process a stale application under the new policy, and the party was left to submit a fresh application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the validity of the challenged mineral concession rules and the marble policy could be examined and mandamus issued when no mining lease had yet been granted and the applicant's pending application had lapsed under the policy.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were premature because the stage for fixation of dead rent would arise only after a lease was granted. The application, if pending at all, stood rejected or lapsed on the coming into force of the marble policy, and the State was competent to frame policy governing disposal of rights in minor minerals. In these circumstances, the Court declined to enter into an academic examination of the consistency of the rules with prior precedent and held that no mandamus could be issued to process the stale application under the new policy.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained on merits, and the appellant was left to make a fresh application in accordance with law.

---