IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9665 of 2005 Date: 9th September, 2010 Between: M.Saraswathi .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9665 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order passed by the second respondent in File No.49/2004 dated 30.12.2004 confirming the orders passed by the first respondent in Memo No.24952/M.II92/2000-1 dated 26.11.2001 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant mining lease for the remaining area of Ac.39-06 in Pedda Obinenipalli village, Bestavari Peta mandal, Prakasam district. It appears, petitioner made application to the respondents on 25.2.1986 for grant of mining lease over an extent of Ac.114-87 in S.No.108 of Peddaobenenipalli village, Bestavari peta mandal, Prakasam district. The said application was processed and the petitioner was granted mining lease over an extent of Ac.75-75 vide G.O.Ms.No.279 Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department dated 19.5.2000. Subsequently, petitioner made another application on 23.12.2000 for grant of mining lease for the remaining area of Ac.39-06. The first respondent vide Memo No.24952/M.II(2)/2000-1 dated 26.11.2001 rejected the said representation on the ground that as per Rules existing at the time of grant of lease, petitioner was eligible only to an extent of Ac.75-75. Assailing the said order, petitioner filed revision before the second respondent and the second respondent vide impugned order dated 30.12.2004 rejected the said revision. Hence this writ petition. According to the petitioner, rejection of representation by the first respondent-primary authority as well as by the second respondent- revisional authority is erroneous and contrary to law. The representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2000 was rejected only on the ground that Rule 35 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 does not permit granting more than Ac.75-75. According to the petitioner, the respondents have failed to notice that the very Rule 35 was not in force as on the date of granting licence and the same was deleted, therefore rejection of her application is arbitrary and illegal. A perusal of the revisional order under challenge would reveal that though the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease over an extent of Ac.114-87, as per the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, lease was granted for Ac.75-75 and the petitioner executed lease deed on 30.9.2000 and the lease is in force upto 29.9.2020. It was further stated in the revisional order that if the petitioner was interested in getting the mining lease for total extent, she should have represented before the State Government prior to grant of mining lease in her favour. The representation was filed after grant of mining lease, therefore it was rejected and petitioner was advised to file a fresh application for the balance area. From the above discussion, it is clear that the intention of the petitioner is that the application filed by her on 25.2.1986 be treated as continuous and subsisting even after she was granted lease for Ac.75-75 and the agreement of mining lease was already concluded. The respondents have stated that the petitioner should have raised this aspect before agreement could be concluded between the parties and not thereafter. Since the agreement was concluded, petitioner has to file a fresh application and the same would be considered, as per law. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders requiring interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is always open for the petitioner to file a fresh application requesting the respondents to treat the very application dated 23.12.2000 for the purpose of preferential right etc, and it is for the department to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per law. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.9.2010 DA