IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16909 of 2004 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Minerals, Kadapa District. … Petitioner And Union of India., rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Steel & Mines, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. N. Shoba Counsel for respondents 2-5: GP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri P. Veera Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16909 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare granting of mining lease to respondent No.6 vide G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 28.01.2004 for Yellow Ochre over an extent of 9.713 hectares in Sy.No.331 of Gollaguduru Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District and also the action of respondent No.1 in confirming order dated 23.08.204 of respondent No.2 in revision No.29/04, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease for Yellow Ochre and Yellow Slate over an extent of 102 hectares of land in Sy.No.331 of Gollaguduru Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR District on 31.07.1998. After inspecting the said area on 07.09.1998, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology forwarded the said application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for No Objection Certificate. The Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.5, refused to grant No Objection Certificate on the ground that the said land was needed for a public purpose (grazing) and rejected the application for grant of No objection Certificate. Following the said rejection, respondent No.2 vide his order dated 12.07.1999 rejected the petitioner’s application in public interest. As no revision petition was filed against the said order, it has attained finality at that stage. Respondent No.6 made an application on 21.06.2001 for grant of mining lease over an extent of Ac.24.00 in the same survey number for which the petitioner made an application. The Mandal Revenue Officer has granted No Objection Certificate in favour of respondent No.6 on the basis of which respondent No.2 issued Memo dated 14.03.2002 permitting grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No.6. A few months thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.1 to question rejection of its application for grant of mining lease and the memo of the Government deciding to grant mining lease in favour of respondent No.6. While the said revision was pending before respondent No.1, respondent No.2 issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 28.01.2004 granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.6 over an extent of Ac.24.00. Questioning the said G.O., the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3951 of 2004 and obtained interim suspension. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision petition. Thereafter, by order dated 23.08.2004, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.6. At the hearing, Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the action of respondent No.2 in granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.6, while rejecting the petitioner’s application, is arbitrary and discriminatory. She contended that having found that the land was needed for a public purpose and rejected the petitioner’s application on that ground, respondent No.2 was wholly unjustified in granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.6. She further submitted that respondent No.1 has failed to assign proper reasons for dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. Opposing these contentions, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, submitted that the area, which was applied for by the petitioner, was far less in extent than the one which was applied by respondent No.6, besides the fact that the said area is different from the one applied for by the petitioner and that therefore no discrimination was shown by respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner’s application for mining lease and granting the same in favour of respondent No.6. He further contended that the petitioner failed to question the grant made in favour of his client in the revision petition and therefore she is not entitled to canvas the legality or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 28.01.2004 in this writ petition. He also submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 contains reasons and therefore it is not liable for interference. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology supported the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.6. Before delving into the validity or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.1, it is necessary to refer to a few facts pertaining to the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 28.01.2004. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has originally filed the revision petition questioning order dated 12.11.1999 passed by respondent No.2, rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a copy of the petition bearing 28.01.2004 as the date purported to have been filed before respondent No.1 seeking amendment of the revision petition to question Memo dated 14.03.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 28.01.2004 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.6. However, the petitioner has not filed any order passed by respondent No.1 allowing the said amendment petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though she has advanced her contentions based on the amendment petition, no formal order was passed by respondent No.1 allowing the amendment petition. The fact, however, remains that neither respondent No.1 has passed an appropriate order on the petitioner’s purported amendment petition nor the contentions, if any, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner were referred to in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. With this background in view, it is necessary to consider the order passed by respondent No.1. A perusal of this order shows that respondent No.1 has narrated the background of the case leading to the petitioner filing the revision application. In paragraph 11, it is stated that the case was taken up for hearing on 23.07.2004 and the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties were heard. In paragraph 12, which is the only operative part of the order, it is stated as under: “We have considered the arguments preferred by all the parties and also gone through the material on record. Considering all the aspects of the case, it is evident that the petitioner was given due notice before rejecting their mining lease application under Rule 26(1) of MCR, 1960 to represent their case but failed to do so. It is clear that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by State Government. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.” From the above reproduced paragraph, it is evident that the only reason that is assigned by respondent No.1 is that the petitioner was given due notice before rejecting its mining lease, but failed to represent its case. On this premise, it was held that there was no legal infirmity in the order passed by respondent No.2. In my opinion, in the face of several contentions raised by the petitioner in its revision petition, the abovementioned reason hardly constitutes sufficient ground for rejection of the revision petition. Even if the petitioner has not represented its case in response to the notice issued by respondent No.2 before rejecting the application, this fact by itself would not absolve respondent No.1 of its obligation to assign reasons for rejecting the revision petition. The law is well settled that the quasi judicial authorities are bound to assign reasons in support of their order and that failure to assign such reasons constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. By failing to assign reasons, the petitioner is disabled from challenging the order on merits. This apart, if reasons are given, the superior Courts would be able to adjudicate the issues on merits with reference to the reasons contained in the orders. In more than one case, the Apex Court has emphasized on the necessity of assigning reasons by the quasi judicial bodies in support of their orders and invalidated orders on the ground of absence of reasons. (see Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited vs. Union of India (AIR 1966 SC 671), G.Vallikumari vs. Andhra Education Society and others ((2010) 2 SCC 497) and Secretary and Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others ((2010) 3 SCC 732) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers ((2010) 4 SCC 785). For the abovementioned reasons, order dated 23.08.2004 passed in revision petition by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s revision petition along with the amendment application, if any filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same afresh after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.6 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.22156 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.07.2010. ES