THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 3142 of 2010 Between: Kankanala Suresh S/o. Balakotaiah, Member, Ambedkar Youth Association, Reg.No.115/90, Mangamuru, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri A.V. Sesha Sai Counsel for Respondents 1 & 3: G.P. for Mines & Geology Counsel for Respondents 2, 4 to 6: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.7: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao. The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The petitioner, who is claiming to be the social worker and a member of a Social Organization, namely, Ambedkar Youth Association, Mangamuru Village of Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, feeling aggrieved by the grant of mining lease in respect of Sy.No.65/1A of R.L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District in favour of the seventh respondent, espoused the facts by way of a representation, dated 23.11.2009 to the Secretary, Industries and Commerce Mines Department, Hyderabad, the first respondent; the Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad, the second respondent; the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Hyderabad, the third respondent; the Director, Mines and Geology, Ongole; The District Collector, Ongole, the fourth respondent; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, the fifth respondent and the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal, Chimakurthy, Prakasam District, the sixth respondent respectively, stating that an extent of Ac.8.08 cents in S.No.65/1A situated within the limits of R.L. Puram Gram Panchayat of Chimakurthy Mandal, was earlier distributed by the Social Welfare Department to weaker sections in the form of house site pattas. Subsequently, granite deposits were found in the said land. The villagers came to know that many people are making efforts to secure the said land. The two leases granted earlier in favour of the seventh respondent within the limits of Ramateertham Reservoir, were cancelled and his claim for alternative allotment of Government land in Sy.No.65/1A, was refused by the Government. But by exercising the political pressures, the seventh respondent got issued a Memo dated 15.05.2009 for allotment of land by the Government, admeasuring 2-857 hectares in S.No.65/1A. Accordingly, the first respondent issued Memo No.11362/M.II (1)/2008-3 dated 15.05.2009 according permission under Rule 12(5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules) to grant quarry lease for Galaxy granite in favour of the seventh respondent. If the said land is sold by way of public auction, the Government will lose crores of rupees. As the respondents did not turn up on his representation, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representations dated 16.11.2009 and 23.11.2009, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to take appropriate action to safeguard the interest of the Government. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating that there is no provision under the Rules to dispose of the land for quarrying under public auction. The Government while enclosing the representation made by the petitioner to the third respondent requested him to examine the matter in detail and to take necessary action vide Memo No.16156/M.II(1)/2009-1, dated 21.12.2009. The third respondent, in turn, forwarded the said representation to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole for submitting a detailed report. It was further admitted that the land in S.No.65/1A of R.L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, is situated within the Black Galaxy Granite zone and there are active working quarries in the area. The subject land was allotted for house sites to the landless poor by Social Welfare Department during the year 1982 and some thatched house are still in existence in the said land. Of late, the Revenue Department has resumed the land by duly allotting house sites to the beneficiaries at some other palce and the area now applied for is situated in the midst of working quarries and within the proven Black Galaxy Granite zone. The quarry lease is being granted for Black Galaxy Granite in accordance with the Rules. W.P.No.25628 of 2008 filed earlier by one Sri Vaka Srinivasa Reddy, one of the applicants, was disposed of by this Court on 12.10.2009 holding that there cannot be any doubt in this regard when such mining grant is beneficial to the public exchequer to say that such grant not to be made by the official respondents and the same to be put by way of public auction only would amount to doing violation to the clear language in Section 16 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the said view has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1259 of 2009 dated 28.10.2009. It is further stated that the seventh respondent filed batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4589 of 2006 and batch for allotment of alternative land in lieu of cancellation of two quarry leases through Memo dated 14.11.2005, which were granted through proceedings No.20326/R3-2/2004, dated 14.10.2004 and a show cause notice was issued as to why auction should not be taken to cancel the lease granted in Proceedings No.20323/R3-2/2004, dated 14.10.2004. This Court vide order dated 9.03.2006 directed the Government in Industries and Commerce Department and Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to consider the petitioners representation dated 8.02.2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the application of the seventh respondent was considered and rejected vide Memo dated 22.06.2006. Thereafter the seventh respondent submitted another application on 13.08.2008 for grant of quarry lease for Black Galaxy Granite over an extent of Ac.8.11 in Sy.No.65/1A of R.L. Puram Village for a period of 20 years. Considering the cancellation of earlier lease granted in favour of the seventh respondent, and in the light of the directions issued by the High Court, the Government through its Memo dated 15.05.2009 accorded permission under Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules duly overlooking the priority in order to grant quarry lease for Black Galaxy Granite in favour of the seventh respondent and by duly rejecting the earlier applications of quarry leases/prospecting licenses received over the area, and instructed the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to take necessary action in the matter. The learned counsel has not pointed out any such Rule, which envisages grant of mining lease in open auction. But Rule 12 of the Rules envisages grant of quarry lease for granite cutting and polishing in the order of preference specified therein. Provided that the priority shall be given only to the applications, which were received within seven days from the date of receipt of the first application. Whenever more than one application, in any particular category, are received they should be disposed of according to the date of their receipt, in case of applications received on the same day, such applications shall be referred to the Government for their approval. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 – it shall be open for the Director, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, and with the prior approval of the Government grant lease under Rule 12(5)(b) in accordance with the order of priority specified. Since the seventh respondent was granted two mining leases earlier as aforementioned on 2.11.2004 to 1.11.2004, and the said work was cancelled due to submergence of the area in Ramateertha reservoir where he sustained huge financial loss invested by him to the tune of Rs.2.1 crores, for removal of overburden the Government wanted to compensate him by granting mining lease for the year sought by him by overlooking the priorities. It is only the prospective applicants, who made an application for grant of lease and whose applications were not considered as per Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules, can question the mining lease by not by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation, when there is no provision in the Rules for grant of mining lease by public auction as contended by him. Therefore, we see no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) _____________ (K.C. BHANU, J.) 20th July, 2009 Js.