HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27822 of 2011 Date : 27.10.2011 Between : M. Dhana Lakshmi. …..Petitioner And The State, rep. by The Director of Mines & Geology, Andhra Pradesh & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27822 of 2011 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. The petitioner herein has made an application on 10.04.2008 to the 1st respondent from the office of 2nd respondent, for grant of quarry lease for black granite in Sy.No.2659 in an extent of 2 hectares in Chittecherla village of Chinnagottigallu Mandal in Chittoor District. On the same day, the said application was forwarded to the 5th respondent for grant of no objection/report on the classification and availability of land on the claim of petitioner for grant of quarry lease. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though time frames were fixed by the Government for expeditious disposal of applications filed under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998, without any reason, his application is kept pending indefinitely without scrutinizing the same. It is stated that as per the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 18.05.1998, when the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology addresses the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, calling for his report on the category of the land and availability of land for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease or quarry lease, he has to send his report within a period of 30 days by duly marking a copy of his report to the District Collector. In this case, it is submitted that inspite of the fact that the application was filed as early as on 10.04.2008, report has not been sent by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998. When the matter came up for admission on 12.10.2011 and 19.10.2011, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader obtain instructions. Based on the written instructions, dated 13.10.2011, issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar in ROC.No.C/19/2010, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that on receipt of the petitioner’s application, dated 10.04.2008, the 5th respondent has examined the classification and availability of the land and submitted the proposals to the District Collector, who in turn, has returned the said proposals to the 5th respondent for rectification of certain lapses and re- submission of the proposals. It is stated that pursuant to such queries by the District Collector, Chittoor, fresh proposals were sent to the District Collector on 16th August 2010, recommending for grant of quarry lease in Sy.No.2812 to an extent of 2 hectares of Chittecherla village. Even according to the learned Government Pleader, no report has been sent to the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed by the Government. In this case, as the application was submitted by the petitioner on 10th April 2008, there appears no reason at all for keeping it pending for such a long time inspite of time frames fixed by the Government for expedite disposal of applications filed under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, framed under The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As it is stated that the report is already sent by the 5th respondent- Tahsildar to the District Collector recommending for grant of quarry lease in favour of petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 5th respondent-Tahsildar to submit another copy of his report directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner in Chittoor District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that if the District Collector is not in agreement with the view expressed by the 5th respondent in his report, it is always open for him to directly address the 1st respondent on the claim of petitioner for grant of mining lease. The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions referred above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th October 2011 ajr