IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6093 of 2008 Between: M/s. Balaji Electro Smelters Limited, Rep by its Director K. Sudesh Kumar, S/o. Narayana, Age 48 years, R/o. Yavatmal, Maharashtra ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bavan, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Industries and Commissioner, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director, Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 6- 58/1, Janakaprasada Nilayam, Near Fire Station, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504 208. 5 M/s. Sirisha Enterprises, Rep by its Managing Partner, Sri N. Rahul Reddy, R/o. Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents proposing to grant prospecting Licence for Manganese Ore in favour of 5th respondent in over an extent of Acs. 2066.74 in Sy.No. 11 to 17, 19, 20 21, 23, 24, 24, 25, 29 to 69 and 71 to 89 of Gollaghat Village, Thamsi Mandal, Adilabad District and seeking prior approval of Government of India (1st respondent) in Lr.No. 10059/M- III/2007-1, dt. 04-8-2007 overlapping the area proposed to grant Prospecting Licence in favour of the 5th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently call for the proceedings in Lr.No. 10059/M-III(2)/2007-1, dt. 04-8- 2007 set aside the same . Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application on 22.12.2003 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Adilabad, the fourth respondent, with a request to grant Prospecting Licence for Manganese Ore in an area of 647.59 acres of Gollagattu Village, Thamsi Mandal, Adilabad District. As required under the provisions of the law, the application was recommended by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the second respondent, to the Government of India, the ﬁrst respondent, for prior approval. It is stated that a clariﬁcation was issued on 11.06.2007, reducing the area to 555.91 acres. The ﬁfth respondent submitted an application on 20.01.2006 for grant of Prospecting Licence over an area of 2066.74 acres of the same village, including the area of the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent forwarded the application of the ﬁfth respondent to the ﬁrst respondent, as regards entire area. It is urged that, being applicant at an earlier point of time, the petitioner had preferential rights over the area applied for it, and the request of the ﬁfth respondent for the said area, cannot be processed at all. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Industries and learned counsel for the fifth respondent. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder prescribe the procedure to be followed for processing and granting the Prospecting Licence, or Mining Lease. The priorities are also determined and the date of application becomes relevant, in this regard. It is a matter of record that the application ﬁled by the petitioner is earlier in point of time, compared to the one submitted by the ﬁfth respondent. Before the application of the ﬁfth respondent, even for the area applied for by the petitioner, is considered, necessary determination ought to have taken place. Obviously, respondents 2 and 3 did not examine the matter, when they have forwarded the application of the fifth respondent for the entire area applied for by it, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it is admitted that the application submitted by the petitioner is being processed and after noticing that the ﬁfth respondent had also included the area applied for by the petitioner, in its application, a communication was sent to the ﬁrst respondent deleting the area applied for by the petitioner, from the one applied for by the ﬁfth respondent. In para 12 of the counter-aﬃdavit, this aspect is made very clear. Taking on record the submission made on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.20.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ