THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1331 OF 2011 DATED:21-12-2011 Between: M/s. Sahithi Granites rep., by its Proprietor, Sri P. Abhinav Kumar, S/o. Sambaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 5-652, Near Bharathi Metal Works, Mancherial, Adilabad District, A.P … Appellant And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, A.P and five tohers … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1331 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of its writ petition bearing No.7732 of 2011 by a learned single Judge by the order under appeal dated 31-10-2011. 2. Respondent No.6 applied for the grant of a quarry lease for colour granite. The application of respondent No.6 is dated 23-11-2011 and it was for an area of 2.00 Hectares in Survey No.1163 in Elgandul Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner gave an application on 24-11-2009 for a quarry lease for an area of 3.00 Hectares in Survey No. 1163/1 of the same village, mandal and district. 4. The application of respondent No.6 was considered being prior in time and a lease was granted to respondent No.6. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the grant of lease in favor of respondent No.6 under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1966. The learned single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/writ petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the application of the appellant/writ petitioner was more specific and pertains to Survey No.1163/1, its application ought to have been favourably considered. In this context, he points out that the application of respondent No.6 merely mentions Survey No.1163 but did not mention the sub-division of the survey. 7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the map submitted by respondent No.6 was inaccurate as compared to the map submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner in respect of the proposed lease area. 8. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has very frankly stated that the only land available for the grant of a quarry lease is Survey No.1163/1. That being so, the fact that respondent No.6 did not mention the sub-division is of no consequence because the authorities who were dealing with the application could not get confused with regard to which sub-division of Survey No.1163 has been applied for by respondent No.6 since only one sub-division was available. Obviously, the application of respondent No.6 has reference only to that sub-division and the mere failure to mention the sub-division, in our opinion, would not cause any confusion in respect of the allotment of the lease. 9. Insofar as the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned viz., with regard to the inaccuracy in the map, it is really for the respondents to take a decision on this. The area and the survey number that we are concerned has been mentioned by respondent No.6 in the application for grant of lease. Since the respondents are aware of the available land, it is not difficult for them to identify the specific land which has to be granted on a lease to respondent No.6. We find no substance in this contention. 10. We find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. We also find no error in the view taken by the learned single Judge in this regard. 11. There is no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 12. The miscellaneous applications are also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21-12-2011 ks