THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6428 OF 2006 Dated 16th June, 2010 Between: M/s Manikanta Minerals …Petitioner And Government of A.P Industries and Commerce and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Ananda Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology 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. I have heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo No.1268/M.II(1)/2005-14 dated 14.11.2005 issued by respondent No.1. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that a mining lease over an extent of Acs.16.41 cents in Survey No.410/P, Devarapalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District was initially held by a Company by name Victory Impex. On 29.12.2001, the said mining lease was transferred in the name of the petitioner and a lease deed to that effect was executed by the respondents permitting the petitioner to quarry black granite. Respondent No.1 has taken up construction of an irrigation project by name Ramatheertham Balancing Reservoir. At the instance of the Irrigation Department, proposals were made for cancellation of certain mining leases in respect of the areas, which will be affected by the proposed Reservoir. The District Collector vide his proceedings dated 25.02.2005 requested the Mining Department to cancel quarry leases and prospecting licences in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.382/P, 406 and 410 of Devarapalem Village and Survey No.58 of Budawada Village, Cheemakurthy Mandal in public interest. Accordingly proposals were submitted by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for cancellation of the leases. In his statement enclosed to the said proposal dated 20.06.2005, respondent No.2 has referred to as many as six leases. The petitioner was included at Serial No.6 of the said statement. In the remarks column of the said statement, respondent No.2, while recommending cancellation of lease deeds in respect of other five lessees, made the following recommendations with respect to the petitioner’s lease. “Taking into consideration of radial distance of 100 to 400m, initially this lease was included in the cancellation list. But taking into consideration of 50 meters safe margin presently stipulated, this lease may be excluded from the list of lessees to be cancelled in view of its distance of 200 mts away from the safe margin. Hence, the action for cancellation may kindly be dropped.” In pursuance of the said proposal of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 19.07.2005 to the petitioner vide Memo No.12682/M.II(1)/2005-6. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, wherein he, inter alia, placed reliance on the opinion of respondent No.1, and pleaded that safe distance was fixed at 50 meters as against which his mine is situated at a distance of 200 meters and therefore his lease is not liable for cancellation. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 has cancelled the mining lease. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 failed to advert to the contents of the petitioner’s explanation. In paragraph 6 of the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 merely stated that the reply submitted by the petitioner was examined in detail and that it found that the contents of the reply are incorrect and far from truth and are neither convincing nor tenable. In my opinion, respondent No.1 failed to apply its mind to the recommendations made by respondent No.2. Though the opinion of respondent No.2 does not bind respondent No.1, before overruling the said opinion, respondent No.1 is required to apply its mind and give reasons to differ with the opinion of respondent No.2. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has not undertaken any such exercise. If a safe distance is fixed and the petitioner’s mining area fell within such a safe distance, there can be no reason to cancel the lease held by the petitioner. Non-consideration of this material aspect vitiated the decision making by respondent No.1. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation, in the light of the report submitted by respondent No.2, and take a decision afresh and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before respondent No.1 decides the matter afresh. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.8182 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2010 vrn