HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2001 Date: September 09, 2014 Between: B. Ramaswamy. … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (Mines II) Department, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2001 O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.316 of Kunchengi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 08.08.1995. The said application was received by the 3rd respondent on 11.08.1995 and the area applied for was re-surveyed. The petitioner was informed that the area applied for was overlapping with the existing quarry lease held in favour of the 4th respondent. In view of the same, the petitioner selected another site in respect of which a survey was initially proposed on 13.02.1996 and it was postponed to 13.03.1996. When no decision was taken pursuant to the selection of another site by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal on 06.06.1996. Challenging the same, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.12170 of 1996 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent with a direction to pass fresh orders after hearing both the parties. The 2nd respondent heard both the parties and passed an order on 25.04.1997 confirming the earlier order passed in favour of the petitioner and directing the 3rd respondent to consider the quarry application filed by the petitioner on 11.08.1995 over the area originally available between the existing two quarry leases of Sri P. Prasad and K. Narayana Rao. Pursuant to the said orders of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent considered the application of the petitioner and granted the quarry lease on 16.05.1997 and possession was also delivered to the petitioner on 21.05.1997. At that stage, the 4th respondent filed a revision before the first respondent who granted order of status quo initially. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31375 of 1997 in which orders of stay was granted initially and thereafter the writ petition was disposed on 12.12.2000 directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision within a period of three months. Pursuant to the said orders, the first respondent disposed of the revision by Memo No.12149/M.II(1)/97-7 dated 24.03.2001 holding as follows: “Accordingly, the Revision Application filed by Sri K. Narayana Rao has been examined in detail and a hearing was conducted on 03.02.2001. The Revision Petitioner and the Respondent have attended the hearing and advocated their arguments. During the hearing the petitioner contended that while granting quarry lease to Sri S. Prasada Rao in 1993, in the area adjoining to his leased area, the applications of Sri S. Appala Naidu and Sri G. Dali Naidu were rejected on the ground that there was no area in between him and Sri Prasada Rao. He therefore argued that there cannot be any area for leasing out to Sri B. Ramaswamy. He has also produced proof in support of his contention. Having examined the arguments and the evidence produced by the petitioner the Government is satisfied that the contentions put forth by the Revision Petitioner are valid and tenable. Hence, Revision Application filed by Sri K. Narayana Rao is allowed duly setting aside the Director of Mines and Geology Proceedings No.12280/R1/1B/96, dt.25.4.97.” Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed. 3. This Court, by order dated 26.04.2001, granted interim suspension and the same was confirmed by order dated 07.11.2001. By virtue of the said orders, the petitioner has been continuing the quarrying operations till today. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons were assigned by the first respondent for allowing the revision except stating that the first respondent is satisfied with the contention of the revision petitioner and accordingly allowed the revision by setting aside the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 25.04.1997. 5. In view of the nature of the order passed by the first respondent, this Court does not want to go into merits of the case. Since the impugned order does not spell out the reasons for allowing the revision except stating that it was satisfied, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for consideration of the revision petition afresh and pass orders after hearing the affected parties. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue the quarrying operations in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs. ________________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 09, 2014 BSB HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8520 of 2001 Date: September 09, 2014 BSB