IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4137 of 2011 BETWEEN J. Devaraja Naidu. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J.M. NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the Tahsildar, fifth respondent in not sending No objection Certificate (NOC)/report directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, third respondent, on the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease of colour granite in an extent of 2 Hectors in Sy.No.505/1 of Yalakallu village, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181 Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated 28.05.1998. 2. The petitioner made an application on 12.04.2010 to the third respondent for grant of colour granite quarry lease over an extent of 2 Hectors in Sy.No.505/1 of Yalakallu village, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. On the said application the third respondent has addressed to the fifth respondent to send his report/NOC with regard to classification and availability of land applied by the petitioner. Petitioner also placed on record a letter issued in Lr.Roc.B/75/2011 dated 10.02.2011 by the fifth respondent to the District Collector, fourth respondent, through the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, recommending for grant of quarry lease on the application of the petitioner. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that for expeditious disposal of the applications for grant of quarry lease, the Government has issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998 and as per the said guidelines, the report/NOC has to be forwarded by the Tahsildar directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. I have also perused a copy of the orders notified by the Government in the aforesaid GO and it is clear that for expeditious dispose of the applications, the Government issued guidelines by fixing time frame at different levels to consider the application. As per the said guidelines, when the matter is referred to Tahsildar, he has to send his report/NOC directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by sending a coy of the said report to the District Collector. In the said guidelines, it is made clear that if the District Collector disagrees with the recommendation of the Tahsildar, he can as well write his objections to the Director of Mines and Geology but there is no such procedure for sending the report directly to the District Collector without even forwarding the report to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. 4. As much as in this case, the recommendations already made and the report sent are not as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tahsildar, fifth respondent to send his NOC/report/recommendations, on the application of the petitioner, directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, third respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and it is made clear that the grant of quarry lease has to be considered on its own merits in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1966 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It is also made clear that if the District Collector, fourth respondent, has any objections and if he disagrees with the recommendations of the Tahsildar, it is open to the District Collector to address to the Director of Mines and Geology. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 22, 2011 DSK