IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18827 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s. Sai Mining Company, Rep. byits Managing Partner, Avula Ratnaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 38 Years, R/o. Gokula Brundavanam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Avula Subba Rao, S/o. Venkatrayulu, R/o. Gokula Brundavanam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 3 Bathalapalli Subramanyam, S/o. Late Jayaramaiah, R/o. Gokula Brundavanam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary, Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 3 The District Collector, Nellore. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore. 5 The Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. 6 Kalyana Rama Company, Venkatagiri Rep.by its Managing Partner, V.V.S.S.Kumara Krishna Yachendra S/o. Govinda Krishna Yachendra, Aged about 32 Years. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in processing and considering the application of the 6th respondent for grant of Mining Lease for MICA and allied Minerals Ignoring the earlier application ﬁeld by the Petitioners as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and consequently direct the respondent to consider and grant mining lease for Mica and allied Minerals to the Petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of Acs.48.00 of land in survey No.535 of Gokula Brundavanam @ Chenganapalli Village of Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District. They submitted an application on 14.12.2007 under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the fourth respondent herein, for grant of mining lease, to quarry mica, ﬂesper and other allied minerals. The application is said to have been forwarded on the same day, by the fourth respondent, to the Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal, the ﬁfth respondent herein, for veriﬁcation. It is stated that the sixth respondent also ﬁled an application, dated 16.02.2008, in respect of almost the same area. The petitioners state that though the application of the sixth respondent was also forwarded by the fourth respondent for veriﬁcation, to the ﬁfth respondent, the processing is undertaken only in respect of that application, leaving aside the application of the petitioner. Necessary directions are sought in this regard. Heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri N.Subba Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.6. The Mines and Minerals ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’) prescribe the procedure for processing the applications submitted for grant of leases, and the actual grant thereof. The State Government is conferred with the power to issue notiﬁcations as regards the availability of lands for exploitation of minerals. The priority to be accorded to the applications would depend upon the existence of such a notiﬁcation. If a notiﬁcation as provided for under Rule 59 of the Rules is issued, the date of submission of application virtually becomes irrelevant. All the applications that are received in response to the notiﬁcation, or those which are pending earlier thereto, are to be treated as having been submitted on the same day and processed together. On the other hand, if no such notiﬁcation is issued, the date of submission of application becomes relevant. The petitioners are under the impression that no notiﬁcation, as contemplated under Rule 59 of the Rules, is issued and though their application is earlier in point of time, it was kept aside, even while processing the application of the sixth respondent. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the area, which is applied for by the petitioners as well as the sixth respondent, is the subject matter of a notiﬁcation, dated 30.05.2008. Therefore, the date of submission of the application made by them becomes relevant. The application ﬁled by them as well as those which are pending earlier thereto are required to be processed together in accordance with the Rules. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents herein shall process all the applications received in response to the notiﬁcation, dated 30.05.2008, vis-à-vis the land mentioned above as well as the applications received earlier thereto together, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the Government itself notiﬁed the availability of minerals and invited the applications, it is in the interest of all that the exercise of processing the applications shall be concluded, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.09.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. kdl