HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No. 14253 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing Memo No.18133/M-II(1)/2007-1, dated 10.06.2008 and the order of the second respondent in Memo No.42133/R6-1/08, dated 17.06.2008 and the consequential order of the third respondent in Proceedings No.3102/Q1/2007, dated 20.06.2008 in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 06.08.2007 for grant of quarry lease for Building Stone and Road Metal over an extent of 2,000 Hectors in Survey No.109 situated at Ramavaram H/o. Laknepally Village, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioner, he made an application dated 6.8.2007 for grant of quarry lease for Building Stone and Road Metal in the above said land, whereas the fifth respondent also made an application dated 03.9.2007 for the same purpose, therefore, the fifth respondent ought not to have been granted any quarry lease. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner drawn attention of the court to Rule 12(3) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 ( for short ‘the Rules”) and submitted that the order passed by the Government is bereft of any reasons and therefore, does not fit into the teeth of Rule 12(3) of the Rules for the purpose of preferring the fifth respondent for grant of minor lease. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned G.P. for Industries and Commerce and learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material placed on record. 4. The fourth respondent filed counter wherein it is stated that in case of application of the petitioner and others, ‘no objection’ was given by the Tahsildar, Narsampet and the area applied for by the applicants has been inspected by the Technical staff and survey and demarcation of the area was conducted by the Supervisor of the fourth respondent office and reported that there is an established crusher unit of the fifth respondent. The lease area that was applied for by the applicants was previously held by one Sri P.Ratnakar Rao, who was a partner of Sri Madhava Reddy, 5th respondent and operated the Crusher unit established adjacent to the lease area in the name of M/s. Venkateswara Stone Crusher and subsequently he had withdrawn his share in the partnership for a consideration of Rs.13,60,000/- from respondent No.5 and also made an agreement for transfer of lease in favour of respondent No.5 by taking the actual expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards actual development of the quarry, but, in the mean time, the lease was determined by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal. Therefore, Mr.Rantnakar Rao had filed an appeal before the Director for the revival of the lease and after getting the share amount and lease amount, Mr.Ratnakar Rao had withdrawn the revision application filed before the second respondent, and hence, the crusher unit was without the lease for feeding the raw material. After thorough verification of all the material papers produced by the petitioner as well as respondent No.5, and the ground position and after taking the facts into consideration, the fourth respondent requested the third respondent to consider the application of the fifth respondent and proposals were submitted to respondent No.3 subject to the conditions specified under Rule 12(3) of the Rules by duly mentioning the special reasons in writing. 5. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, I am afraid, I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 6. Further, Rule 12 (3) of the Rules contemplates preference shall be given to a person who is crusher owner and who does not have quarries. This criterion is satisfied by the fifth respondent. 7. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 13.12.2010 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No. 14253 of 2008 13.12.2010