IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE 1ST DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15925 of 2007 Between: K.Chitti Babu S/o.Ramanaiah M/s.Anil Mines and Minerals, R/o.C/o. Dr.M.Saraswathi, D.No.25/1/833 ZP colony, Nellore,Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of India,. Ministry of Coal & Mines Shastri bhavan, New Delhi, rep.by its Secretary 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, secretariat Building, Hyderabad rep.by its Principal Secretary 3 The Director of Mines & Geology, 8th floor, BRKR Bhavan Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore Plot No.4, Santhinagar, Gandhinagar Road, Nellore-524004 Nellore District 5 M/s.Briliant Mines & Minerals, rep.by its Propreiterix Smt.P.Vimalasagar, W/o.P.N.Vidyasagar R/o.5-1-8, Sarojini Devi Road, Triupati-517 Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the Revision Application in File No.2(8)/2006/RC-II dated 18.8.2006 filed by the 5th respondent herein challenging the Memo No.11348/M.I(2)/02-3 dated 21.10.2002 of the 2nd respondent herein rejecting the Mining Lease Application of the 5th respondent and also overlooking the delay of about four(4) years without making the petitoner herein as party to it as illegal, arbitrary,contrary to Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner herein to add himself as party respondent in the said Revision Application and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJANIKANTH JWALA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 15925 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed WVMP No.24404 of 2007 seeking lifting of the interim order dated.26-07-2007 in the writ petition whereby this court had granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the revision application bearing file No.2(8)/2006/RC-II, pending before the 1st respondent in the writ petition viz., namely the Government of India. The revision was instituted by the 5th respondent in the writ petition, challenging a memo dated.21-10-2002 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh declining grant of mining lease. The petitioner was sanctioned a prospecting licence for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite in an extent of Ac.115.98 in Sy.Nos.504 of Chaganam Village, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District by the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.72, Industries and Commerce Department, dated.31.03.2007. In view of the conditions spelt out in the sanction of the prospecting licence, set out in para.7 of the G.O.Ms.No.72, the prospecting licence is seen to have been granted subject to several conditions including that it is subject to the outcome of the revision filed by the 5th respondent before the Government of India. In the writ petition the grievance is that the revision is being heard by the G.O.I without the writ petitioner having being impleaded despite being a necessary and proper party with an interest to urge, in view of the sanction of prospecting licence to him in G.O.Ms.No.72. The 5th respondent in the affidavit accompanying the application for vacate stay has specifically pleaded in para.2 that it filed the revision before the Government of India on 22-08-2006 while the writ petitioner was sanctioned the prospecting licence only on 31-03-2007 and therefore there was no occasion for impleading the writ petitioner in the revision. According to the 5th respondent however since the writ petitioner has now been granted a prospecting licence though subject to the 5th respondent’s revision, the 5th respondent has no objection to the writ petitioner being impleaded and heard by the G.O.I in the revision proceedings. When the matter is taken up there is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner or the G.O.I, despite the names of the counsel for the petitioner and Central Standing Counsel being reflected in the cause list. In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the limited matrix of the lis in the writ petition, this court considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself. As the writ petitioner has an interest which he is entitled to urge in the revision preferred by the 5th respondent before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to implead the writ petitioner as a party respondent in the revision bearing File No.2(8)/2006/RC-II. The 1st respondent shall furnish a copy of the 5th respondent’s revision to the writ petitioner; shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of lodging objections to the claim in the Revision; as also an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the revision. After considering the material on record, the pleadings and submissions on behalf of the revision petitioner and any objections lodged by the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the revision in accordance with law, expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st APRIL,2008 Note: Issue CC As soon as Possible (B/O) *TSNR