THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12191 OF 2007 Dated 17th March, 2010 Between: D.Udaya Sekhar Reddy and another ..Petitioners And The Director of Mines nd Geology and six others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondents 4 to 6: Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy for Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The father of respondents 4 to 6 was granted a quarry lease for a period of 10 years by respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 07.03.2001 over an extent of Acs.2.65 cents. By order dated 13.10.2003, respondent No.2 determined the lease. The lessee died on 23.10.2003. Questioning the order of determination of lease, respondents 4 to 6 claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased lessee filed an appeal before respondent No.1 on 13.09.2006. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1 by order dated 26.02.2007 as the appellants failed to attend the personal hearings. Respondents 4 to 6 have initially filed an application to set aside the said order and later a review. By order dated 25.05.2007, respondent No.1 has allowed the review petition; set aside the order dismissing the appeal and restored the appeal to file. At the hearing, Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.1 is not conferred with the power to entertain a review petition and therefore, the impugned order, setting aside his earlier order and restoring the appeal, is without jurisdiction. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6, however, while stating that though no express statutory power has been conferred on respondent No.1, such a power is deemed to exist in him being the appellate authority. It is not in dispute that neither the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”) nor the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 confer power of review on respondent No.1. The law is well settled that power of review is required to be specifically conferred by statute and in the absence of such power being conferred in him, respondent No.1 cannot exercise the same. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition, whereby respondent No.1 had set aside the earlier order passed by him, cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. However, respondents 4 to 6 are given liberty to question order dated 26.02.2007 passed by respondent No.1 by availing an appropriate remedy under the Act. They are also entitled to seek condonation of delay for the period of pendency of the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th March, 2010 vrn