IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24498 of 2003 Between: M/s. Evershine Granites, Lakshmipuram, Kuppal, Chittoor District a registered Partnership Firm, rep., by its Managing partner Asgher Ahmed Pasha S/o. Mohd. Pasha Saheb, R/o. Lakshipuram, Kuppam, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Mines & Geology Government of A.P., having office in Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 3 M/s. Latha Granites, Lakshmipuram, Kuppam, Chittoor District rep., by its Proprietor A. Srinivasulu .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2: AGP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY. Counsel for Respondent No.3 : None appeared. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24498 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.41088/R4-2/02, dated 07.10.2003, of respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. 3. No one appeared for respondent No.3, despite service of notice on it. 4. The petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for grant of quarry lease of black granite over an extent of one Hectare in Sy.No.1106 of Theertham village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District, on 22.11.2002. Respondent No.1 considered the said applications and, by the impugned proceedings, he granted quarry lease to the petitioner and respondent No.3 over 0.500 hectares each. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), which is extracted to the extent it is relevant:- “ The application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. for granite and Marble shall be disposed oﬀ by the Director in the order of their receipt. Whenever, more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant licence or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing.” The above reproduced provision thus provides that if two or more applications are received on the same day, respondent No.3 shall consider the relative merits and grant lease in favour of the deserving applicant. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 failed to consider the merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.3. Instead, he has chosen an easy way of dividing the area into two halves and allotting one half to each of the applicants. This, in my view, is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 12(5) (b) of the Rules reproduced above. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.3 on merits and pass order in accordance with the aforementioned proviso. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 24.10.2008 v v