IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 77 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/11/2007 in WP NO : 11013 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Rapaka Sai Suresh S/o.Suryaprakash Rao R/o.Botsapeta, Tatapalem Road, Vizianagaram District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Secretary to Government of AP., Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Visakhapatnam 4 The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology Vizianagaram 5 P.Sartha Chandra S/o.Ramu Naidu R/o.Devupalli village,Bandapalli mandal Vizianagaram District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WA No.77 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant’s writ petition questioning the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dt. 3-5-2007 in Memo No.11291/M.II(1)/2006 allowing the revision application filed by the fifth respondent, P. Sarat Chandra under Rule 35-A of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”) against determination of quarry lease for road metal and building stone granted in favour of 5th respondent was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present appeal has been filed. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal would hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the above writ appeal, may be stated, in nutshell, as under: The fifth respondent was granted quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 1.64 hectares in S.No.9 of Maruvada village of Bondapalli Mandal in Vizianagaram District for a period of 10 years by the third respondent, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam vide his proceedings No. 976/Q2/2000 dt. 28-6-2001. The fifth respondent executed lease agreement on 25-9-2001 for a period of 10 years ie., till 24-9-2011. As the lessee, 5th respondent failed to pay advance dead rent of Rs.41,000/- for the year 2005-2006 and also dues of Rs.56,584/- for the year 2004-05, the fourth respondent, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram, submitted a report to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam. On the basis of the said report, the Deputy Director issued a show cause notice to the fifth respondent on 31-3-2005. In spite of notice, the fifth respondent failed to pay the advance dead rent and arrears due by him. Basing on the proposals of the Assistant Director, the Deputy Director determined the lease of the fifth respondent, vide his proceedings No.1153/Q3/2005 dt. 8- 12-2005. The writ petitioner, who is an unemployed graduate applied for grant of mining lease for the area, which was the subject matter of cancellation, along with an application fee of Rs.1500/- on 10-1-2006 with Form-B under Rule 9 of the Rules. On the application so made, the third respondent called for remarks from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bondapalli Mandal, Vijayanagaram District, who endorsed “No Objection” on 12-6-2006. When the matter stood thus, the fifth respondent filed a revision application dt. 14-7-2006 under Rule 35-A of the Rules in the month of September, 2006, with an application to condone delay and for stay contending that there were no dues except advance dead rent for the year 2005-06. Pending revision application, he also paid dead rent of Rs.88,179/- along with interest of Rs.28,817/- and the land assessment through challan dt. 7-1-2006. On coming to know of obtaining stay by the fifth respondent, the writ petitioner moved the Government for vacating stay on 11-10-2006. As the revisional authority failed to pass orders on the vacate stay petition, he filed WP No.546/2007 before this court. This court by order dt. 27-2-2007 directed the first respondent to pass orders on the revision application filed by the fifth respondent. In obedience to the said directions, the first respondent after providing personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, who paid entire arrears due by him to the Government by then, allowed the revision application filed by the fifth respondent. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition contending that no reasons were assigned for condoning delay or allowing the revision application and the first respondent failed to consider the points raised by the writ petitioner in his vacate stay petition, namely, application made by him and no-objection endorsed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. When the lease was determined after following due procedure, the revisional authority ought not to have interfered with the same. The fourth and fifth respondents filed their separate counter affidavits. The learned single Judge while confirming the order passed by the revisional authority after considering the arguments advanced by the parties observed as under: “On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that while balancing the rights, certain factors had been taken into consideration and the revision had been allowed. It is not as though absolutely no reasons had been recorded by the 1st respondent. It may be that reasons in detail had not been recorded relating to the condonation of delay, but when discretion had been exercised and delay had been condoned and on facts when 1st respondent exercised the power under the specified Rules and made an order setting aside the orders which had been questioned in the revision and ultimately allowed, normally, this Court to be slow in disturbing such order, especially, in a case of this nature, where there are no serious allegations as against the 5th respondent as such, except the non- payment which had been duly complied with….” We have heard Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Industries appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner submits that the first respondent did not take into consideration the facts mentioned in his vacate stay petition filed on 11- 10-2006 about his filing application for grant of mining lease and no- objection endorsed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and no reasons were assigned for condoning the delay or allowing the revision application, and therefore the order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice, and the same is liable to the set-aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the fifth respondent would contend that the writ petitioner is only a prospective licensee and in the absence of any lease granted in his favour, he cannot question the order passed by the revisional authority since his rights have not been affected. In spite granting no objection there is no guarantee that the petitioner will be granted mining lease, in view of the same, he is not a party aggrieved to question the order passed by the first respondent. We have gone through the order passed by the revionsal authority. Indisputably, lease granted in favour of the fifth respondent was determined for his failure to pay the advance dead rent of Rs.41,000/- for the year 2005-2006 and also dues of Rs.56.584/- for the year 2004-2005, as per Rule 10 of the Rules. No doubt, the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease on 10-1-2006, and the same was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who endorsed no objection in the year 2006, and no further action has been taken on the no objection certificate either for grant of lease or for rejection of the application. Under Rule 9 every application for grant or renewal of quarry lease for any minor mineral except sand and granite useful for cutting and polishing in respect of a land shall be made in Form-B to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in whose jurisdiction the land lies. As per Rule 9(iii) in respect of minor minerals except those mentioned in sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 which are worked to meet the immediate or timely requirements, the Assistant Director may permit to carry on quarrying operations on payment of seigniorage fee in advance and permit granted under sub-rule (iii) shall in no case be for more than sixty days as per Rule 9(iv). Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 12 provides disposal of application for grant of quarry lease by the Deputy Director if more than one application are received in the order specified. Against rejection of lease, the applicant can file an appeal under Rule 35 of the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner’s application has not been considered for grant of mining lease. On disposal of the application, under Rule 13 lease deed shall be executed within ninety days from the date of grant or within such further period as the Director may allow in that behalf provided the grantee applies for extension of time within thirty days from the date of expiry of the period stipulated for execution. If no lease deed is executed within the stipulated period or extended period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the authority who is competent to grant quarry lease shall revoke the order granting lease. In view of the same, grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner is not automatic and he did acquire any right to question the revision application filed by the existing licensee-5th respondent. It is also not in dispute, lease granted to the fifth respondent was determined only on his failure to pay advance dead rent and other dues as aforementioned. Once the revisional authority satisfied that pending revision application, the fifth respondent paid entire dues, for which lease was determined, it has an obligation to condone delay and allow the revision application. By mere filing of an application for grant of mining lease will not confer any right on the petitioner unless quarry lease is granted in his favour to oppose the revision application filed by the 5th respondent. In other words, he has no locus standi to oppose the revision application filed by the fifth respondent. Though the order passed by the revisional authority is a speaking order, no valid reasons were assigned for allowing the revision application filed by the fifth respondent. As already stated, during the pendency of the revision application, the fifth respondent has paid the amount due by him, for which lease was determined, the revisional authority thought it fit to allow the revision application. Since the petitioner has not acquired any right, he cannot question the order passed by the revisional authority. Since the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary in nature, the learned single Judge of this court has not inclined to exercise the same; therefore we hold that this is not a fit case, which calls for our interference. We, therefore, decline to do so. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Dt. 2-05-2008 KMR