THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21074 of 2011 Dated 30th September, 2011 Between: Shaik Hameed …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M.Dhanamjay Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Lr.No.11795/Plg.HMDA/NOC/2008, dated 28.06.2011, of respondent No.2, and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to NOC from respondent No.2 for quarry lease for stone and metal in Survey No.174 of Sultanpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal. I have heard Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Dhanamjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA representing respondent No.2. The petitioner applied for quarry lease for stone and metal in respect of Hc.1.000 in Survey No.174 of Sultanpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District on 06.08.2004. Quarry lease was granted by respondent Nos.3 vide his proceedings bearing No.4225/QL/2004, dated 13.12.2005, on the basis of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheruvu, who classified the land as gairan land. When the petitioner was awaiting execution of lease deed, respondent No.1 sent proceedings, dated 28.06.2011, to respondent No.4, wherein he has informed that the application for grant of NOC cannot be considered. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The validity of the impugned order is questioned mainly on two grounds, namely, that the impugned order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejection of the NOC and that the action of respondent No.1 is discriminatory for the reason that about three months prior to passing of the impugned order, respondent No.2 has granted NOC in favour of an agency called M/s.G.S.Rocks, D.D.Colony, Hyderabad on 05.03.2011, for Hc.10.000 of land in respect of the same survey number i.e., Survey No.174, of Sultanpur Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District. The Chief Planning Officer of respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the extent of Acs.523.31 guntas in Survey No.174 of Sultanpur Village is recorded as gairan land, that out of the said extent, an extent of Acs.451.21 guntas was handed over to respondent No.2 by the revenue department on 18.12.2004, that through letter, dated 28.07.2008, respondent No.4 has requested to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner and that at that point of time, the land in question was vested with respondent No.2. It is further stated that a decision was taken not to grant NOC for carrying out quarry operations and the Collector, Medak District has requested respondent No.2 to handover the above extent of Acs.451.21 guntas back to the revenue department vide his letter, dated 30.10.2008. It is sought to be explained that at the time of processing the petitioner’s application, the land is in possession of respondent No.2 and therefore, the NOC was decided to be rejected and the same was communicated through final order, dated 28.06.2011. Respondent No.2 has admitted grant of NOC in respect of Hc.10.000 of land in the same survey number in favour of M/s.G.S.Rocks after collection of development charges. It is further averred that the petitioner may proceed to develop the quarry without contravening the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2007. From the stand taken in the counter affidavit referred to above, it is evident that the basis for rejection of NOC was that the land was in possession of respondent No.2 when the file was processed. However, by the time the impugned order of rejection was passed, the land was transferred back to the revenue department and therefore, the said reason of being in possession is not germane at all for rejection of NOC by respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 has candidly admitted issuance of NOC in respect of the same survey number in favour of M/s.G.S.Rocks. Therefore, there cannot be any justifiable reason for respondent No.2 to reject NOC in case of the petitioner. Such rejection certainly constitutes invidious discrimination between two similarly situated persons. Moreover, as pleaded by the petitioner, no reasons whatsoever have been mentioned in the order of rejection. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s application afresh and take an appropriate decision in the light of the observations contained hereinabove and keeping in view the fact that in respect of the same survey number, NOC was issued in favour of M/s.G.S.Rocks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner and respondent No.4 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25656 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th September, 2011 VGB