IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8563 of 2008 Between: M.Murali Mohan Reddy S/o.Anki Reddy R/o.Simhadripuram village & Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnoo, Kurnool District. 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 6 M/s. Seven Hills Trading Corporation, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Jethendra Das Maganti, Rockdale Layout, Visakhapatnam. 7 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Rep. by its Director (MInes), Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi -1. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 7th respondent in file No.2(19)/2007-RC-II, dt. 20.2.2008 restraining the petitioner from conducting the mining operations in the area leased out in favour of the petitioner by the respondents 1 to 5 over an extent of Ac.64.00 in Sy.No.988 of Velichelamala Village, N.P.Kunta Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct mining operations in the area leased out to the petitioner as per the lease dt. 19.12.2007 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MRS. M. SEETHA DEVI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8563 OF 2008 ORDER: Questioning the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the 7th respondent- Government of India, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application on 18.07.2005 for sanction of mining lease for quartz over an extent of Ac.64.00 in Sy.No.988 of Velichelamala Village, N.P. Kunta Mandal, Anantapur District and, pursuant to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer reporting no objection and recommending for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent- Director of Mines and Geology, A.P., Hyderabad, submitted proposals to the 1st respondent- Government of A.P. recommending for grant of mining lease for quartz in respect of the aforesaid extent of land in favour of the petitioner, while recommending for rejection of the applications of the others including the 6th respondent herein, who has applied for grant of mining lease in respect of Ac.750.00 in the aforesaid survey number. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 06.07.2007 approving the said proposal for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner and rejecting the application of the 6th respondent for the reasons mentioned therein, and the petitioner was required to complete certain formalities. Subsequently, on completion of such formalities by the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 18.10.2007 granting mining lease in favour of the petitioner as required by him, for a period of twenty years, and consequently, lease deed was also executed on 19.12.2007. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner commenced mining operations and has been continuing the same. While that being so, the 6th respondent herein, whose application for grant of mining lease for quartz over an extent of 750 acres in the aforesaid survey number was rejected, filed a revision before the 7th respondent- Government of India, questioning the memo dated 06.07.2007 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting its application. Thereupon, the 7th respondent passed the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 ordering stay of operation of the said memo till the disposal of the revision and restraining the 1st respondent from allowing the operation of the mining lease of the petitioner herein in any manner during the pendency of the revision. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides. A bare look at the memo dated 06.07.2007 passed by the 1st respondent would indicate that the 2nd respondent has recommended for rejection of the application of the 6th respondent on the ground that it has failed to attend for survey and inspection and also failed to pay the difference of application fee and that its application was pending since 2000. It was also mentioned in the said memo that a show-cause notice was issued to the 6th respondent and since the explanation offered by it was not convincing and as the Mandal Revenue officer concerned has rejected to issue No Objection Certificate in its favour, its application was rejected by the 1st respondent. Further, in the impugned order, it was stated that the Joint Director of Mines and Geology has submitted that out of 750 acres of land applied by the 6th respondent, only 64 acres have been given to the petitioner herein and they are willing to consider the application of the 6th respondent for the remaining extent of land, subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions by depositing Rs.2,000/- as initial fee. Thus, it is to be noted that the application of the 6th respondent is not rejected in total and, in fact, In view of the said submission of the Joint Director, the 7th respondent has also directed the 1st respondent to allow the 6th respondent to deposit Rs.2,000/-. Further, the lease deed was executed on 19.12.2007 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has already commenced mining operations as on the date of passing of the impugned order, as agreed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Thus, viewed from any angle, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, but not in favour of the 6th respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the 7th respondent is modified, by directing the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on 20.02.2008 till the disposal of the revision preferred by the 6th respondent. Further, the 7th respondent- Government of India is directed to dispose of the said revision in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th February, 2009. Note:- Issue CC in one week. BO IBL