The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.9733 of 2003 Dated 17th June, 2010 Between: T.Prakash Kumar and another …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Smt.P.Vijayalakshmi for Smt.N.Shoba Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash proceedings No.C/356/2003, dated 06-05-2003, issued by respondent No.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. No one appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioners applied for grant of mining lease for quartz and feldspar over an extent of Ac.25-04 guntas of land in Survey No.55 of Mangampet Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, for a period of 30 years vide their application, dated 15-09-1998. The petitioners pleaded that respondent No.3 issued NOC vide his letter, dated 06-11-1998, for grant of mining lease over an extent of 5.46 hectares (Ac.13.30 cents) along with location map signed by the Mandal Surveyor and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jinnaram. Accordingly, the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioners in respect of 5.46 hectares. However, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings wherein he inter alia stated that the petitioners have not obtained NOC from respondent No.4- Mangampet Gram Panchayat and that as Survey No.55 comprises 25.05 acres out of which the petitioners were granted lease only for 5.46 hectares, it is not known as to which part of the larger area is covered by the mining lease. It is further stated that some villagers made a representation stating that a temple known as Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple is located in the above- mentioned survey number and that the mining operations may affect the said Temple and the environment. Respondent No.3, therefore, called upon the petitioners to stop mining operations forthwith, obtain NOC from the Gram Panchayat concerned and get the survey conducted for demarcation of the leased area. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the application made by the petitioners for grant of mining lease was considered in the light of the NOC issued by respondent No.3 for an extent of 5.46 hectares of land. It is further submitted that along with the NOC, respondent No.3 submitted location map signed by the Mandal Surveyor and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jinnaram, and that as per the sketch submitted by them, the temple structure is located 50 meters away from the mining area. It is further stated that the said distance is in conformity with Rule 27 (1) (h) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Respondent No.2 further stated that under the statutory provisions, it is not necessary for the applicant seeking grant of mining lease to obtain NOC from the Gram Panchayat concerned. The above averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 support the plea of the petitioners and clearly indicate that the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioners after following the due procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory requirement of NOC to be obtained by the petitioners from the Gram Panchayat concerned, insistence of such certificate by respondent No.3 cannot be sustained. Similarly, when the location map was signed by respondent No.3 himself along with the Mandal Surveyor and the same was enclosed to the NOC issued by respondent No.3 himself, the observation contained in the impugned proceedings that “it is not clear as to which part of the land in Survey No.55 is covered by the mining lease” also does not reflect the true facts. Moreover, the power of respondent No.3 to prevent the petitioners from operating the quarry covered by a valid lease is not shown to be traceable to any specific statutory provision, in the absence of which respondent No.3 has no power or authority to issue the impugned proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.3 is quashed and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th June, 2010 lur