IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7732 of 2011 BETWEEN M/s. Sahithi Granites. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY SMT. N. SHOBA GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is heard, by consent of all the learned counsel, at the stage of hearing vacate stay petition. 2. The writ petitioner and the sixth respondent are the applicants for grant of quarry lease for colour granite. While the writ petitioner has applied for lease to the extent of 3.00 Hectares in Sy.No.1163/1 of Elgandul Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, the sixth respondent has applied for 2.00 Hectares in Sy.No.1163 of the aforesaid village. It is not in dispute that while the application of the petitioner is dated 24.11.2009, the application of the sixth respondent is dated 23.11.2009. 3. The primary contention raised in the writ petition and pressed for hearing is that as the petitioner’s application relates to Sy.No.1163/1, he is entitled to priority over the sixth respondent’s application, as the sixth respondent has not mentioned the sub-division number of Sy.No.1163 and in that regard the application of the petitioner is precise and specific and also accompanied by a sketch map, which conforms to the location of the applied area. 4. This Court, by order dated 29.03.2011, while issuing notice before admission directed status quo to be maintained and in pursuance thereof, the quarry lease has not been granted to the sixth respondent, though according to the learned counsel for the sixth respondent the application of the sixth respondent has been favourably considered and approved and the mining plan is called for from him in pursuance of the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 23.03.2011. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent/State. While the respondent/State specifically confirmed that a comparison of the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent, particularly the sketches under which they have applied, shows that the area applied for in both the applications is one and the same and while the petitioner has applied for the same area notifying it as Sy.No.1163/1, the sixth respondent has applied for the same area notifying it as Sy.No.1163. It is also specifically averred in the counter that, as per the report called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Sy.No.1163 in entirety is a Government poramboke land in which several assignments were made and for that purpose 52 sub-divisions were made and supplementary sethwar was issued vide file No.L4/2415/2080. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar also furnished the Phodi sketch along with his report mentioning the above. Taking the above into consideration and the purpose of the Rule 12 5(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), the Government considered the application of the sixth respondent as sufficient for the identification of the applied area on ground as well as the priority of the application as per the date of receipt, as provided under Rule 12 5(b) of the Rules aforesaid. The sixth respondent’s application was being considered for grant of mining lease and for that purpose the Director of Mines and Geology called for approved mining plan in his proceedings dated 23.03.2011 from the sixth respondent. 6. The sixth respondent also filed a counter reiterating that, admittedly, his application is prior to that of the petitioner. Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, contended that the application of the petitioner gives the khasra number as 1163, which cannot be said to be incorrect and that the sixth respondent has also filed the village map along with the sketch, which clearly shows the survey number of the applied area as 1163/1. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that once the application is sufficiently precise for identifying the area on the ground, the application is entitled to priority and cannot be rejected on the ground that sub-division of the survey number is not mentioned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions by comparison of the sketches filed by the petitioner and the sixth respondent and submits that the sixth respondent has virtually copied the sketch map filed by the petitioner. It is also contended that the recommendations of the revenue authorities in terms of G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998 show that there is no impediment for grant of mining lease over the remaining extent of Sy.No.1163 admeasuring Ac.6.32 guntas. Learned counsel, therefore, points out that the petitioner’s application is precise with respect to correct survey number with sub-division number and the plan whereas the application of the sixth respondent does not at all mention the sub-division number of Sy.No.1163 nor the area applied for tallies with the sketch map. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the application of the sixth respondent cannot be treated as a valid application for the purpose of giving priority and the application of the petitioner deserves to be considered on priority basis as a complete application in all respects. Learned counsel also contended that the comparison of sketch maps filed by the petitioner vis-à-vis the sixth respondent would show that 3.00 hectares shown in the petitioner’s application correctly shows the applied area while the sixth respondent’s map though purported to be for 2.00 hectares of applied area, covers larger area than that of the petitioner and in that view also the application of the sixth respondent cannot be treated as valid. 8. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice the Rules 12 5(a)(i) and 12 5(b) of the Rules as under: “12 5(a)(i). A Prospecting License or quarry lease for [granite useful for cutting and polishing and marble] shall be granted by the Director on an application made to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned in Form N/P and each such application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. shall be accompanied by a sketch drawn to the Scale demarcating the boundaries for easy identification on the ground duly signed by the applicant and by a qualified surveyor and by a treasury or bank challan for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) towards non- refundable application fee and a deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) for every hectare or part thereof in the form of cross Demand Draft obtained in favour of the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology of the District concerned in whose jurisdiction the area falls”. “12 5(b). The application for grant of PL or QL for [granite and marble] shall be disposed off by the Director in the order of their receipt. Whenever, more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant license or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing.” 9. It would be noticed from Rule 12 5(a)(i) of the Rules, extracted above, that the sketch map required to be annexed to the application must be sufficient to identify the boundaries of the applied area on ground and is required to be drawn to scale. Except for the dimensions of the applied area shown in the petitioner’s map and the sixth respondent’s map, the approximate location sufficient to identify the applied area on ground is clearly evident from the sketch map filed by the sixth respondent. The above Rule 12 5(a)(i) of the Rules, therefore, cannot be read in such a manner as to require every applicant to be so precise in his application and the sketch accompanying the application, as the Rule itself requires that the sketch map should be such as to enable the identification of the applied area on ground easily ascertainable. 10. When counter affidavit filed by the State specifically mentions that the only purpose of Rule 12 5(a)(i) of the Rules being for the purpose of identification of applied area on ground, the minor discrepancy in not mentioning the sub-division number of the survey number would not, in my view, render the application of the sixth respondent incompetent in any manner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sixth respondent has copied his application including the map also does not appear tenable in view of the fact that the sixth respondent has, admittedly, applied earlier to that of the petitioner and prima facie, the person applying earlier cannot be said to have copied the application of the subsequent applicant. Once the application of the sixth respondent is treated as sufficient to identify the applied area on ground, it’s consideration on the basis of entitlement for priority under Rule 12 5(b) of the Rules and processing of the application of the sixth respondent cannot be said to be contrary to the Rules. The petitioner’s prayer seeking priority over that of sixth respondent, therefore, does not conform to the Rules, particularly, Rule 12 5(b) of the Rules, referred to above. 11. All the learned counsel submitted that during the hearing of this writ petition earlier, the sketches filed by the petitioner and the sixth respondent were required to be produced and the same were produced before this Court from the records of the respondent/State. Those sketches are placed before this Court and a look at the sketches clearly show that there is no ambiguity or confusion with regard to the applied area and it cannot be said that application of the sixth respondent is either incomplete or non-est. The application of the sixth respondent, therefore, is entitled to due priority as per Rules and has, accordingly, been rightly considered by the State in preference to that of petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the interim order of status quo granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 31, 2011 DSK