THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3750 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein made an application on 23.01.2006 requesting the 1st respondent – Deputy Director of Mines & Geology to grant quarry lease in respect of Road Metal and Boulders in an extent of 2 hectares situated in Sy.No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, which is notiﬁed as Scheduled Area. It is stated that the Gram Panchayat of Gonthuvanipalem passed a Resolution dated 6.2.2006 granting No Objection for grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, conducted an enquiry and recommended for grant of quarry lease vide proceedings dated 14.03.2006. Alleging that in spite of the recommendations made by the 4th respondent and the consent given by the Gram Panchayat, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. While pleading that similarly situated persons namely K. Pothuraju and P. Suribabu were granted quarry lease in the adjacent land situated in Sy.No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village for extraction of road metal, the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no justiﬁable reason in not considering his request for similar lease. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a counter- aﬃdavit has been ﬁled in which the fact that the petitioner made an application on 23.01.2006 for grant of quarry lease has not been disputed. The fact that two quarry leases were granted in Sy.No.207/1 to similarly situated persons is also not disputed. However, it is stated that as per the instructions of the District Collector, dated 18.12.2008, all the applications for quarry lease in agency area are required to be referred to the District Forest Oﬃcer concerned and it is necessary to obtain No Objection Certiﬁcate from the District Forest Oﬃcer. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application was referred to the District Forest Oﬃcer, Kakinada, on 29.12.2006, but no report has been received so far. That apart, the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram directed the 2nd respondent not to grant any leases in the agency area without obtaining the consent from the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram. However, the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA by letter dated 28.9.2007 rejected the petitioner’s application. Hence, the petitioner could not be granted the quarry lease. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noted that an identical issue relating to grant of lease in Sy.No.207/1 was considered by this Court in W.P.No.15505 of 2007. This Court after considering the scope and object of Rule 9 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and particularly keeping in view that the quarry leases were granted to two similarly situated persons, allowed the writ petition by order dated 31.1.2008 holding that the competent authority is expected to follow uniform procedure while treating the applications of the applicants who are similarly placed. However, the learned Government Pleader, while pointing out that in the instant case the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram rejected the petitioner’s application, contended that the petitioner herein cannot be granted mining lease. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries & Commerce, dated 28.5.1998, contended that NOC granted by the concerned Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is suﬃcient to grant the lease and there is no need to consult the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, for grant of lease in notified tribal areas. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader to show that the consent of the Project Oﬃcer, ITDA, is mandatory for granting the lease. As could be seen, the only provision governing the grant of mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled areas is Section 242-H of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which mandates prior recommendation of the concerned Gram Panchayat. In the case on hand, since such clearance from Gram Panchayat was already granted, the further objections raised by the respondents are untenable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of two hectares of land situated in Sy.No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District is arbitrary and illegal. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.08.2008 Kgr/gbs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3750 of 2008 Between: Gada Satti Babu S/o.Subba Rao, R/o.Balabadrapuram village, Biccavolu, Mandal East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Gandhipuram, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, E.G. District. 4 The Tahsildar, Addateegala 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not granting quarry lease in respect of the land to an extent of Hec.2.00 in Sy.No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease to quarry road metal and bolders as wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: