R. P. No.429/2011 16.9.2011 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has applied for review of the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 11.5.2011 by which the writ appeal was dismissed. There is a delay of 70 days in filing the review petition. There is an application seeking condonation of delay. The ground mentioned in the said application is that the petitioner was bona fidely pursuing the remedy for restoration by way of M.C.C. No.795/2011. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the review petition. The claim of the petitioner basically is that his pending application for grant of quarry lease should be considered according to the Rules which were in force on the date of making of the application and which are known as Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, particularly Rule 9 as it exists at that time. The Division Bench did not find force in the submission of the learned counsel apparently because no vested right accrued to the petitioner merely by making an application for such grant. The Division Bench held that all pending applications should be considered according to the rules which were in force by way of amendment on the date of such consideration. Further the claim of the petitioner was also rejected by the Division Bench on the ground that according to the number of decisions of the Supreme Court cited in the order under review, public property should be disposed or settled or leased out by public auction to ensure that the highest revenue is received by the public Exchequer. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by this Court is in accordance with law and does not warrant review moreso, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, 1995 MPLJ 710 relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711 wherein it has been held as under :- “While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an application for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in any one an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application.” (Emphasis supplied)” In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any patent error or illegality apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order passed by this Court. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (R. S. Jha) Acting Chief Justice Judge AK