IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1801, 1802 and 1803 of 2008 & Writ Petition Nos. 21463, 21457 and 21467 of 2007 WRIT APPEAL NO : 1801 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21463 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S/o. Malladora R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 S. Lakshmana Reddy S/o. Somasundara Reddy R/o.# 5-33-2, Main Road, Ramavara Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, rep.by its Director 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. 4 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada East Godavari District. 6 The Tahsildar, Prattipadu Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL NO : 1802 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21457 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu (Hindu) S/o. Malladora R/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. Maheswari Minerals Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Rama Krishna, R/o. Hyderabad. 2 The Government of India Rep. by the Director New Delhi. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Director of Mines & Geology 8th Floor, BRKR. Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology Kakinada East Godavari District. 6 The Tahsildar Prattipadu Mandal East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS AND WRIT APPEAL NO : 1803 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2008 in WP NO : 21467 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S?o.Malladora Hindu R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, E.G. District. 5 Tasildhar, Prattipadu Mandal, E.G. District. 6 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S?o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 T. Gangadhar Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. #69-10-5, Bhasker Nagar, Opp. C.T.R.I Rajahmundry, East Godavari. 2 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines New Delhi, Rep,. by its Director. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, E.G. District. 6 Tasildhar, Prattipadu Mandal, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Smt. N. Shobha Counsel for the Respondent No.2: A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Addl. Solicitor General Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY & Writ Petition No. 21463 of 2007 Between: S.Lakshmana Reddy s/o.Somasundara Reddy R/o.# 5-33-2, Main Road,Ramavaram Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India., Ministry of Mines, New Delhi rep.by its Director 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep by its Secretary Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th floor,BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 4 The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada East Godavari District 5 Tahsildar, Prattipadu mandal, East Godavari District 6 S.R.Y.Venkta Rayulu S/o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for records in File No.2(110/2007-Rc-21 dated 24.9.2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and declare that the revision is not maintainable and pass such other orders. Writ Petition No. 21457 of 2007 Between: M/s. Maheswari Minerals rep. by its Managing Partner P.Rama Krishna S/o.P.Jaganmohan Rao R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, rep. by its Director. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Mines & Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Buildings Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 Tahsildar, Prattipadu Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 S.R.Y.Venkata Rayulu S/o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records in file No. 2(12)/2007-RC-21, dt. 24.09.2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and declare that the revision is not maintainable and pass such other order or orders. And Writ Petition No. 21467 of 2007 Between: T. Gangadhar Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy R/o. #69-10-5, Bhasker Nagar, Opp. C.T.R.I Rajahmundry, East Godavari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Mines New Delhi, Rep,. by its Director. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, E.G. District. 5 Tasildhar, Prattipadu Mandal, E.G. District. 6 S.R.Y. Venkata Rayulu S/o.Malladora R/o.Kakinada, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for records in File No.2(13)/2007-RC-21 dt. 24-9-2007 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction and declare that the revision is not maintainable and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5:G.P. for Industries and Commerce The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1801,1802 and 1803 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R. Varma) Since the controversy involved in all these three writ appeals and the writ petitions being the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment. These three writ appeals are filed by the appellant-Respondent No.6 against the orders of a learned single judge made in W.V.M.P. No. 1362 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 27829 of 2007 in W.P. No. 21463 of 2007; W.V.M.P. No. 1363 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No.27822 of 2007 in W.P. No. 21457 of 2007 and W.P.M.P. 1364 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 27836 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 21467 of 2007, dated 1.5.2008, respectively. It appears, the respondents-writ petitioners were granted mining lease by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and assailing the ownership of the respondents, the appellant filed revision petitions before the Central Government, the 2nd respondent herein, under Rule 54 of the Rules, and the 1st respondent through order, dated 24.9.2007, suspended the order of the 2nd respondent. Assailing the said proceedings, the respondents-writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ petitions and the learned single judge of this Court while issuing Rule Nisi, suspended the orders of the Central Government. Seeking vacation of the said interim orders, the appellant filed vacate stay petitions. The learned single Judge by the orders impugned in these appeals declined to vacate the interim orders. Hence, the appellant filed these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the land in question was identified as mokasa land and he is disputing the title and ownership of the respondents-writ petitioners. He further contends that the appellant has got right over the land under lease; that the Government was not justified in granting lease to any third parties and lot of hardship is caused to him and that he has a preferential right for grant of mining lease. Whether the appellant is the real owner of the lands in question and whether he has a preferential right for grant of mining lease over the respondents-writ petitioners are the questions, which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, and it can be agitated before the 2nd respondent-revisional authority in the pending revisions. Further, if any hardship is allegedly caused to the appellant or is likely to be caused to the appellant by way of grant of lease to the respondents-writ petitioners, the same can always be agitated by the appellant by initiating appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum, as per law. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitions are pending before the 2nd respondent, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. However, we feel it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision petitions expeditiously. Accordingly, all these writ appeals are disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the hearing of the revision petitions and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to state that both the parties shall cooperate with the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of the revision petitions. Writ Petition Nos. 21463, 21457 and 21467 of 2007: In view of the common judgment passed in the writ appeals, no further orders need be passed in the writ petitions. The writ appeals and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 30th December, 2008 Note: Furnish c.c. in two days B/o pnb