IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.531 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/04/2008 in WP NO : 8154 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Sirisha Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri N. Rahul reddy, # 46 C, MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. Balaji Electro Smelters Ltd., Rep. by its Director K. Sudesh Kumar, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Yavatmal, Maharastra State. 2 The government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 3 The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Director, Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, H.No. 6-58/1, Janakaprasada Nilayam, Near Fire Station, Mancherial, Adilabad - 504 208. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.N.SHOBA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.531 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) Appellant submitted an application in the year 2006 before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial, Adilabad District, 4th respondent herein, for grant of prospecting licence for Manganese, over an extent of Acs.2425.00 in various survey numbers of Gunjala village of Thamsi Mandal in Adilabad District. Similarly, the 1st respondent also submitted an application for grant of similar licence over an extent of Acs.216.00 in different survey numbers of that village. The 1st respondent filed W.P.No.8154 of 2008 before this Court, for a declaration that the action of the authorities of the Mines Department in proposing to grant prospecting licence for Manganese Ore in favour of the appellant herein, over an extent of Acs.1506 in different survey numbers, overlapping the area applied for by it is illegal and arbitrary, and for a direction that its application, for grant of licence over the area applied for by it, be processed. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 16.04.2008, directing that while processing the application of the appellant herein, the area applied for by the 1st respondent, be excluded. The said order is challenged in this Writ Appeal. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the application submitted by his client is earlier in point of time, and even assuming that there is overlapping in the areas applied for by the appellant on the one hand, and the first respondent on the other, the same needs to be examined with reference to the relevant rules. He contends that a specific direction for exclusion of the area applied for by the 1st respondent is contrary to the relevant rules. Smt. N.Shobha, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand submits that the 1st respondent applied for licence only in respect of its patta lands, and as such, no exception can be taken for the direction to exclude the lands while processing the application of the appellant. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology made submissions on the same lines. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the rules made thereunder prescribes the procedure for grant of prospecting, as well as mining linceces, for major minerals. Whenever more applications than one are submitted in respect of the same area, the parameters, for grant of licence in favour of one of the applicants, are also stipulated. Even assuming that the 1st respondent had submitted an application only respect of the patta lands held by it, it cannot seek a unilateral declaration that no other agency is entitled to submit application for the same area. At the most, it can object the grant of licence in respect of third parties, if the same is opposed to any provision of law. The question, as to whether a prospecting licence is to be granted, and if so, as regards which land, must be left entirely to the discretion of the licencing authority. If any error or illegality creeps into the process, the aggrieved party has to work out his remedies in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. We are of the view that exclusion of any particular area from the consideration of an application for prospecting licence, that too, without hearing the affected party, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow the writ appeal and set aside the order, dated 16.04.2008, in W.P.No.8154 of 2008. We direct that the licencing authority shall take into account all the applications, pending for grant of licence in respect of any area, before licence is granted to any one, and it shall be open to the respective parties to submit their objections well in advance. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) _____________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21st May 2008. sh/vs