IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1104 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2009 in WP NO : 4867 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri C. Shashi Kumar ... APPELLANT AND The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar district, Mahaboobnagar and five others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.4: Government Pleader for Forests Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6: Government Pleader for Mines and Geology The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 12-03-2009 in Writ Petition No. 4867 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant leaving him free to pursue the remedies under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant applied for prospecting licence for Quartz and Fledspar over an extent of Acs.40.04 guntas in Survey No. 74/45 of Perikiveedu Village of Koilakonda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. In connection with the said application, he approached respondent No.1 for issue of No Objection Certificate (for short, “NOC”), which is a pre-requisite for granting prospecting licence. The appellant’s application for NOC was rejected by respondent No. 1 by order dated 11-12-2008. This order was questioned in the above mentioned writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. At the hearing, Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.1 has not properly considered the appellant’s application for NOC with reference to the ground realities, that respondent No. 1 ignored recommendation made by the Tahsildar, Koilakonda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District vide his letter dated 02-10-2007 addressed to respondent No. 5 – the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, wherein it was categorically stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Surveyor has reported that the land in question falling in Survey No.74/45 of Perikiveedu Village is classified as poramboke and that after leaving Acs.5.10 of land assigned in favour of five landless poor persons, the balance of Acs.40.03 guntas of land is full of rocks having deposits of Quartz and Feldspar and that the same is unfit for cultivation. The learned counsel further contended that while rejecting the NOC, respondent No. 1 placed reliance on the purported report dated 03-12-2008 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahaboobnagar and the alleged opinion of the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar who was stated to have inspected the area, to the effect that the land in question falls within the reserve forest boundary and that the said reports were not supplied to the appellant and, therefore, he was denied a reasonable opportunity of explaining his case with reference to the said adverse reports. We have heard the learned Government Pleaders for Industries and Revenue. From a reading of the order of the learned single Judge, it is evident that the learned Judge proceeded on the premise that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the land falls within the reserve forest area. A perusal of the record shows that there are conflicting reports regarding the question whether the land is situated within the reserve forest or outside of it. At the hearing, it is not disputed that respondent No. 1 has not supplied the reports of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahaboobnagar and the Joint Collector, which formed the basis for rejection of the NOC. In our considered view, the appellant ought to have been supplied with these two reports and called for his objections before passing a final order by respondent No.1 rejecting the application for grant of NOC. Denial of this opportunity resulted in failure of justice. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge under appeal as well as endorsement dated 11-12-2008 questioned in the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is directed to furnish to the appellant, copies of reports of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahaboobnagar and the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar based on which NOC was rejected, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant shall be free to file his objections to the said reports within two weeks thereafter. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the appellant, respondent No. 1 shall pass a fresh order on the appellant’s application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such objections, from the appellant. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal as allowed, WAMP No. 2221 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th August, 2009 ks