IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10891 of 2008 Between: Y.S.R. Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Y.Siva Reddy, S/o. Late Y.C. Narayana Reddy R/o. Ram Nagar Extension, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce ( SPIU & SAND ) department, Secretariat , Hyderabad 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District. 5 M/s. Suryachandra Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. P. Nageswar Reddy, S/o. P. Hanumantha Reddy R/o. H.No. 11-855-5, 1st Cross, Aravind Nagar, Anantapur- 515001. .....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 to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in entertaining the revision filed by the respondent No.5 and issuing Memo No. 6241/APIU & SAND/ 2008-1 dated 08.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary adn violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to A.P. Mineral Consession Rules 1966 and consequently set asde the same after declaring that no revision can be entertained by respondent No.1 or any one regarding the orders passed in favour of the regarding the Nagalapuram reach, Pedda Vaduguru Mandal, Anantapur District Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in entertaining the revision filed by the 5th respondent and issuing Memo No.6241/SPIU & SAND/2008-1, dated 8-5-2008 as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material made available on record. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being an affected party, a notice has to be issued as required under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) before issuing the impugned Memo and unless and until the petitioner is heard, no orders could be passed by the Government-revisional authority. To appreciate the said contention, it is relevant to notice Rule 35- A of the Rules, which reads as under: “35-A. Revision:- The Government may either suo motu at any time or on an application made within ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken by the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director under these rules for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit. Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this rule, unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. Explanation:-………….” From the above Rule, it is clear that the Government may either suo motu or on an application entertain a revision against the Orders passed by the Director etc., but no order adversely affecting any person could be passed. In this case, admittedly, the 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent against the order of the 3rd respondent confirming the lease in favour of the petitioner and the 1st respondent without hearing the affected party i.e., the petitioner herein, passed an interim order staying quarry operations. The fact that the impugned Memo was issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner is not in dispute. Therefore, the impugned Memo is contrary to Rule 35-A of the Rules and as such, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Memo is set aside. The stay application filed by the 5th respondent shall stand reopened. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the stay application filed by the 5th respondent and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after putting the petitioner on notice and after hearing him, as per law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 21-5-2008 LUR/PRK ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce ( SPIU & SAND ) department, Secretariat , Hyderabad 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District. 5 2CCs to The G.P. for Mines and Geology. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}