HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1928 of 2011 Date: February 21, 2011 Between: K.S. Kasinadh, S/o.K.Sambasivudu, Aged about 39 years, Occ:business, R/o.Nayanicheruvu village, Thumminda Post, Chittoor Mandal and District … Petitioner And The Director of Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent, Tahsildar, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District in not sending No- Objection Certificate (NOC) directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned about classification and availability of land applied by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 1000 hectares in Sy.Nos.131/1 of Bandapalli village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.181 Ind & Com (Mines-I) Department dated 28-05-1998. Petitioner herein has made an application dated 07- 11-2008 for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 1000 hectares in Government land covered by Sy.Nos.131/1 of Bandapalli village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. It is stated that as per the procedure, he has paid the requisite application fee and survey charges. It is stated that one set of papers was forwarded to the fourth respondent herein for issue of NOC with regard to availability and classification of land along with covering letter No.6536/Q/2008 dated 07-11-2008. The grievance of petitioner is that in spite of the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28-05-1998 for disposal of application for grant of quarry lease; respondents are not adhering to such directions and not sending the report directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that on the application submitted by the petitioner, proposals from Assistant Director of Mines and Geology were sent to the Tahsildar; same were received in the office on 12-07-2010 and it is stated that on receipt of proposals the Mandal Surveyor subdivided the land in Sy.No.131 as Sy.No.131/4 and submitted survey record; record was sent to the Deputy Inspector, R.D.O’s Office, Chittoor for scrutiny of sub-division records. It is further stated as per the directives issued by the District Collector; necessary proposals are being submitted to the District Collector, Chittoor for necessary action. A perusal of the guidelines notified by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28-05-1998 would make it clear that Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar has to send his report to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology directly by marking a copy of the report to the District Collector. If the District Collector is in agreement with the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he need not make any further report to the Director of Mines and Geology; however if he disagrees he will send his recommendations to the Director of Mines and Geology. In this case, as is evident from the counter-affidavit, Tahsildar has received proposals from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology only on 12-07-2010. Report is not yet sent to either Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or the District Collector. In view of the guidelines issued vide the G.O. afore-cited, report is to be sent to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by the Tahsildar by marking a copy to the District Collector concerned. As it is stated that proposals are under scrutiny - at the stage of sub-division, by the fourth respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent, Tahsildar, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, to send the report/No-Objection to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology by marking a copy to the District Collector and take further steps in accordance with law. It is made clear that no finding is recorded on the claim of the petitioner for grant of lease in his favour. It would be open to the authorities to examine the application of the petitioner independently on its own merits and pass appropriate orders. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) February 21, 2011 MRR