IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :28301 of 2009 DATED:8.7.2010 Between: Gudur Narotham Reddy .....PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India rep by its Secretary to the Government, Industries & Commerce Dept, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :28301 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to set aside the revision order passed by the Respondent-1 vide memo 11392/M-II (1)/2009-4 dated 11.12.2009 which is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct Respondent-4 to submit the survey report and to process the quarry lease application filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he made an application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 8.00 hectors in S.No:596 of Nagulamalyal village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District for a period of 20 years. The said area is having the abundant mineral of colour granite which is being used locally and exported to several countries. The petitioner is an unemployed youth and has filed an application for the quarry lease on 28.3.2006. He appeared for the survey and inspection conducted by the Surveyor of Respondent-3 on 15.12.2006 and the land is demarcated to an extent of 5.30 hectors in S.No:596 of Nagulmalyal village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. On 4.4.2007, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar, Respondent-3 has inspected the area and submitted the report. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar has not submitted the report with regard to the classification and availability of land despite of reminders sent by Respondent-3 and personal visits of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Karimnagar several times and the Tahsildar, Karimnagar has not issued N.O.C in favour of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. For non submission of N.O.C by Respondent-5, Respondent-3 has recommended the rejction of the quarry lease application of the petitioner and basing on the said proposal, the Director of Mines and Geology, Respondent-2 has issued a show cause notice on 13.5.2009 to reject his quarry lease application. He replied to the show cause notice seeking time to get N.O.C from the Tahsildar, Karimnagar. Without considering the representation, Respondent-2 has rejected his quarry lease application on 4.7.2009. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, he moved a revision application before Respondent-1 as per A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 on 23.7.2009. Respondent-5 was also impleaded in the said revision. Respondent-1 has also rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. On behalf of official Respondents-1 to 3, a counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that it is true that the petitioner has made an application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite in S.No:596 of Nagulamalyal village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar Diustrict over an exten of 8.00 hectors (Government Land) for a period of 20 years on 21.7.2006 vide Office letter No:1811/Q1/2006, dated 28.3.2006. The receipt of the application was acknowledged by the office of the Director of Mines and Geology and the petitioner was requested to attend the survey and inspection of the area on 28.7.2006 vide office letter No:1811/1/2006, dated 21.8.2006. The petitioner received the registered letter on 18.9.2006. Then the Surveyor of the office of the Mines and Geology has surveyed and demarcated the area as per the application of the petitioner on 15.12.2006. The then Surveyor has reported that the surveyed area is worked out to 5.30 hectors as against the applied area of 8.00 hectors after reducing the area due to overlapping with other applications. Then the Surveyor has submitted the survey report, surveyed sketch and consent letter of the petitioner. The Assistant Geologist of the Mines and Geology had also inspected the area on 10.4.2007 and submitted the report. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer was requested to send his report regarding classification and availability of land vide office letter No:1811/A1/06, dated 28.3.2006 and a subsequent reminder on 21.8.2006. But, no report has been received from him. Therefore, the Director of Mines and Geology in Memo No:39072/R5-1/04, dated23.1.2006 has issued instructions to submit proposals after waiting for a period of one month in case of minor minerals where no proposals are forth coming from the Tahsildar, for rejection. The subsequent applications on the area would also be pending due to non disposal of the application of the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, the proposals for rejection of quarry lease application was submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Lr.No:1811/A1/2006, dated 18.3.2009. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has issued a show cause notice vide Lr.No:10703/R6-3/06, dated 13.5.2009 to the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why the application should not be rejected under Rule 12 (5) (d) of A.P.M.M.C Rules, 1966. In response to the said notice, the petitioner has requested one more opportunity to obtain N.O.C vide his letter dated 27.6.2009. After examining the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has rejected the abovesaid quarry lease application vide proceedings No:10703/R6-3/06, dated 4.7.2009 on the ground that the Tahsildar, Karimnagar is not inclined to give N.O.C even after completion of 3 years and that therefore, the quarry lease application cannot be processed. It is also stated that aggrieved by the rejection proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, the petitioner has filed revision before the Court. Though the petitioner went to the office of the Tahsildar, he could not find the Tahsildar and he was informed that the Tahsildar was busy with one or the other reasons. It was also stated by the petitioner in the grounds of revision that he could not consistently pursue the Office of the Tahsildar for obtaining N.O.C as he was suffering from ill health and financial problems. The petitioner therefore requested the authority to give one more opportunity to obtain the N.O.C from the Tahsildar concerned by revoking the rejection proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad issued vide proceedings No:10703/R6-3/06, dated 4.7.2009. It is further stated in the counter that the 5th respondent viz., M/s Sandiya International Granites has applied for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 5.50 hectors in the same survey number including the area applied by the petitioner on 28.3.2006. Necessary proposals for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 2.00 hectors in favour of the 5th respondent were submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology in single file system vide File No:1934/Q1/07, dated 30.6.2009 for deleting the overlapping area with the earlier application of the petitioner. The 5th respondent was granted the quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 2.00 hectors vide proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology No:9704/R6-3/07, dated 13.8.2009 and the quarry lease deed was executed on 28.8.2009. Subsequently, another quarry lease application was received on 21.5.2009 in the same survey number over an extent of 9.75 hectors filed by the 5th respondent including the area applied by the petitioner. It is further stated that while the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent has filed a petition before the government stating that they have applied for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 9.750 hectors in S.No:596 of Nagulamalyal Village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District on 21.5.2009 duly paying the requisite amounts and complied with the conditions as per the Rules. Therefore, the 1st respondent has confirmed the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities. The 4th respondent has filed the counter stating that as per the file bearing No:B/1335/2006, no action was taken in respect of the petitioner’s application for quarry lease in S.No:596 of Nagulmalyal village of Karimnagar Mandal which was received from the 3rd respondent on 6.4.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Office. It is also stated that the application of the petitioner was received by the 4th respondent on 6.4.2006. But, the connected file was not circulated for further action by the office of the 4th respondent and no report was sent by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer has sent a report on 18.3.2010 stating that the land applied for lease is a Government Bancharai land and there are no structures or residential houses and places of Religious, Historical and Public importance. On behalf of the 5th respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the 5th respondent has applied for the quarry lease in respect of the very same survey number and he has complied with the conditions in accordance with the Rules and therefore, he was granted quarry lease. The point for consideration is whether the order of revision impugned herein, warrants any interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that remains undisputed is that the proposals for rejection of quarry lease application was submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad vide Lr.No:1811/A1/2006, dated 18.3.2009 and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has issued a show cause notice vide Lr.No:10703/R6-3/06, dated 13.5.2009 to the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why the application should not be rejected under Rule 12 (5) (d) of A.P.M.M.C Rules, 1966 and in response to the said notice, the petitioner has requested one more opportunity to obtain N.O.C vide his letter dated 27.6.2009 and after examining the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has rejected the abovesaid quarry lease application vide proceedings No:10703/R6-3/06, dated 4.7.2009. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, he moved a revision application before Respondent-1 as per A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 on 23.7.2009 and the said revision was also refused. At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the proceedings No:10703/R6-3/2006, dated 4.7.2009 which reads as under: “Though the reference 1st cited, Sri Gudur Narotham Reddy has filed an application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 8.000 hectores in S.No:596of Nagulmalyal village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said quarry lease application was received by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar on 28.3.2006. Through the reference 2nd and 3rd cited the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar and Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad have submitted proposals on the quarry lease application of Sri Gudur Narotham Reddy, in the subject area recommending for rejection on the ground that the Tahsildar Karimnagar is not inclined to give No Objection Certificate even after completion of (3) years. Through the reference 4th cited, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant as to why the application should not be rejected. Through the reference 5th cited, the applicant has requested to give a chance to obtain No Objection Certificate since the Revenue Department is not inclined to issue No Objection Certificate the quarry lease application cannot be processed. In view of the above circumstances, the quarry lease application of Sri Gudur Narotham Reddy for colour granite over an extent of 8.000 hectors in S.No:596 of Nagulmalyal village, Karimnagar mandal, Karimnagar District is hereby rejected under Rule 12 (5) (d) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.” It is also pertinent to note that the 5th respondent-M/s Sandya International Granites has applied for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 5.50 hectors in the same survey number including the area applied by the petitioner on 28.3.2006 and necessary proposals for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 2.00 hectors in favour of the 5th respondent were submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology in single file system vide File No:1934/Q1/07, dated 30.6.2009 for deleting the overlapping area with the earlier application of the petitioner and that the 5th respondent was granted the quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 2.00 hectors vide proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology No:9704/R6-3/07, dated 13.8.2009 and the quarry lease deed was executed on 28.8.2009 and Subsequently, another quarry lease application was received on 21.5.2009 in the same survey number over an extent of 9.75 hectors filed by the 5th respondent including the area applied by the petitioner and that the 5th respondent has filed a petition before the Government stating that they have applied for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 9.750 hectors in S.No:596 of Nagulamalyal Village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District on 21.5.2009 duly paying the requisite amounts and complied with the conditions as per the Rules. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has confirmed the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities. A perusal of the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent makes it clear that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions as per the Rules and he has also failed to produce the N.O.C from the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the conditions, his application for quarry lease was rejected under Rule 12 (5) (d) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. It also appears that the application of the 5th respondent for quarry lease was considered and the quarry lease was granted in respect of 2.00 hectors of land as per the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology No:9704/R6-3/07, dated 13.8.2009 on the ground that the 5th respondent has complied with the conditions as per the Rules and the quarry lease deed was executed on 28.8.2009, which is prior to the filing of the present writ petition. But, the said order has not been challenged in this writ petition. It is also apparent on the face of the record that the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent- Government on the ground that the order of rejection passed by the Director of Mines and Geology would not suffer from any legal infirmities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the petitioner to take appropriate steps if he is so advised to question the validity of the proceedings issued in favour of the 5th respondent. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:8.7.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :28301 of 2009 8th July, 2010