“In the case in hand, no explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing to this petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to non-issuance of mining lease and non-renewal of prospective licence. The contract between the petitioner and M.P. State Mining Corporation had been of dated 28.10.1996. This agreement was for exploration and exploitation of tin-ore from the notified mining areas and it was the responsibility of M.P. Mining Corporation to provide for the lease and mining rights to another company in the JVC. The prospective licence was issued to M.P. State Mining Corporation. This prospective licence was not issued in favour of the petitioner and neither there is anything on record to show that the rights for exploration and exploitation were transferred to JVC, as agreed in the agreement dated 28.10.1996 in the last line of Clause-2, that later on whole rights shall be given to JVC for a minimum period of 20 years which were never transferred to petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the grievance of petitioner arose for the first time on issuance of the notice dated 28.10.2002. Under these circumstances it appears that the petitioner has failed to raise the dispute and seek redressal of his grievance in the appropriate time. Hence, in view of the decision in the matter of State of Uttranchal's case (supra) and other judgments referred in this order, it is found that on account of delay on the part of the petitioner, this petition is not maintainable.”
