IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12969 of 2001 Between: B.Anantha Reddy, S/o B.Mohan Reddy, 3-3-41/A, Gokul Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Ministry of Mines, Rep. by Union Secretary to Government of India,New Delhi, 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh , Rep.by Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR P.CHAKRAVARTHY FOR MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1: Ms T.Bala Jayasree Counsel for respondent No.2:AGP for Industries and Commerce. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 14-05-2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby it set aside the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. The facts, in brief, are as under:- M/s Balaji Minerals and one Dinesh Pamnani applied for grant of mining lease for extracting quartz and felspar over Acs.6.00 and Acs.5.15 guntas respectively in Survey Nos.14/1 and 14/2 of Cheepunthal Village, Talakondapalli Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The said applications were ﬁled on 16-08-1993 and 19-06-1995 respectively. The petitioner also applied for mining lease on 04-03-1999. The applications of M/s Balaji Minerals and Sri Dinesh Pamnani were rejected by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the area for which the applications were ﬁled was being used by the villagers as a grazing ground. The said order was passed on 30-11-1999. However, by order dated 15-12-1999, mining lease was granted for the same area in favour of the petitioner. Sri Dinesh Pamnani, the unsuccessful applicant, ﬁled revision petition before respondent No.1 under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”). As the petitioner was not made a party to the said revision petition, he got himself impleaded therein. Respondent No.1, by its order dated 14-05-2001, while declining to interfere with order dated 30-11-1999 by which the application of Sri Dinesh Pamnani for grant of lease was rejected, however, set aside order dated 15-12- 1999 by which the petitioner was granted mining lease by the State Government. At the hearing, Sri P.Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted and in my view, very correctly, that respondent No.1 exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the grant in favour of the petitioner, as challenge in the revision petition was conﬁned only to order dated 30-11-1999 passed against Sri Dinesh Pamnani, rejecting his application for grant of mining lease. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. Section 30 of the Act reads as under- “The Central Government may, of its own motion or on application made within the prescribed time by an aggrieved party, revise any order made by a State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act, with respect to any mineral other than minor mineral.” From the reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the Central Government has not exercised suo motu revisional power. It entertained the revision application ﬁled by Sri Dinesh Pamnani against order dated 30-11-1999, by which his application for grant of mining lease was rejected. There is nothing in the impugned order, which suggests that before cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 exercised suo motu revisional power and issued notice to the petitioner as to why order dated 15-12-1999 by which the petitioner was granted mining lease should not be cancelled. Though suo motu revisional power exists in respondent No.1, unless it is properly exercised by following the due procedure and principles of natural justice, it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to set aside the order, by which the petitioner was granted lease, which was not the subject matter of the revision ﬁled by Sri Dinesh Pamnani. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of respondent No.1 to the extent of setting aside the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.1 from exercising its suo motu powers under Section 30 of the Act and pass appropriate orders in respect of the grant made in favour of the petitioner, after giving the petitioner a show cause notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th September, 2008 vrn