HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.867 of 2008 Date: November 10, 2011 Between: K.Rajitha, W/o.Linga Reddy … Petitioner And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others … Respondents Order: Petitioner has questioned the order dated 16.06.2007 passed by the 1st respondent vide memo No.19706/M.II (1)/2006, confirming the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.38248/R6-1/2005. Petitioner has filed an application in Form B on 27.08.2005 as prescribed under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules) framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the Act’) for grant of quarry lease for road metal in an extent of 2.974 hectares in Sy.No.469/1 of Chintagattu village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. When it is noticed that the said area is covered by colour granite, she has submitted application on 23.02.2006 seeking conversion from road metal to colour granite. The 4th respondent herein has also filed an application on 09.11.2005 for grant of lease for colour granite with regard to the same area applied by the petitioner, i.e. Sy.No.469/1, situated at Chintagattu village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. Among various other applications, the 2nd respondent-primary authority has considered the application of the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease for colour granite with regard to the aforesaid land and passed order dated 11.12.2006 granting quarry lease in its favour. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1s t respondent on 18.12.2006 under Rule 35-A of the Rules. The 1st respondent, by order dated 16.06.2007, vide memo No.19706/M.II(1)/2006, confirmed the order of the primary authority dated 11.12.2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner has made an application dated 27.08.2005 seeking grant of quarry lease for road metal in Sy.No.469/1 of Chintaguttu village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, but after coming to know about the availability of colour granite in the aforesaid land, she made an application on 23.02.2006 for conversion from road metal to colour granite. It is further submitted that though the application of the petitioner is earlier in point of time, respondents-authorities have illegally granted lease in favour of the 5th respondent ignoring the application of the petitioner. It is to be noticed that, in the application of the petitioner dated 27.08.2005, she sought grant of quarry lease for road metal in the land in question, but not for colour granite. When the said application of the petitioner, which is filed in specified format as per the Rules, by mentioning the availability of a particular mineral, i.e. road metal, the latter application of the petitioner for conversion of mineral, i.e. colour granite cannot be considered. In the absence of any provision for conversion from road metal to colour granite under the Rules, it is not open to the petitioner to seek such conversion. As much as the application of the 5th respondent is dated 09.11.2005, in which it has applied for grant of lease for colour granite and the said application is the first application with regard to colour granite, the primary authority, i.e. the 2nd respondent has considered the application of the 5th respondent and granted quarry lease in its favour for colour granite by order dated 11.12.2006. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order is rejected by the 1st respondent-revisioal authority by order dated 16.06.2007 by recording valid findings, in conformity with the Rules. At this stage, it is submitted that pursuant to grant of lease in favour of the 5th respondent, a lease deed is also executed and 5th respondent is operating the quarry. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the orders impugned, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 10, 2011 MRR