IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:71 of 2002 Between: M/s. Keerthi Rocks (P) Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Plot No.B-6, Industrial Estate, Smt.B. Indira, W/o. Chandra Naidu, R/O.Chittoor, Chittoor, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Cuddapah, Cuddapah district. 3 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 S. Babu Naidu, S/o. Srinivasulu Naidu, R/o.B.M.N. Complex, MBT Road, Palamanoor (P.O), Chittoor Dist. R impleaded as per Court order in WPMP No.12295/02 dt.9.9.02 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 14.12.2001, passed by respondent No.4 conﬁrming proceedings, dated 02.03.2001 issued by respondent No.1 revoking the prospecting licence granted in favour of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.11250/R4-2B/98, dated 20.10.2000 in respect of 1 hectare in the gap area of Thirumalarajapuram Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. Heard Sri T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries. The petitioner company was granted a prospecting licence, on an application made by it’s the then Managing Director, Mr. Chandra Naidu, by respondent No.1 vide his proceedings, dated 20.10.2000 with a condition to execute Prospecting Licence Deed within sixty days from the date of grant. As the petitioner failed to execute the said deed, respondent No.1 by his proceedings, dated 02.03.2001 revoked the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner ﬁled revision before respondent No.4 under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’). In the said revision petition, the present Managing Director pleaded that her husband was the Managing Director of the petitioner company at the relevant time and that due to ill- health and her busyness with her personal work, she could not execute the licence deed within the stipulated time. Respondent No.4 dismissed the said revision petition by it’s order, dated 14.12.2001. Assailing the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the death of the then Managing Director, who is the husband of the present Managing Director, in a motor vehicle accident, while travelling from Chittoor to Hyderabad and also due to the serious injuries suﬀered by the present Managing Director, she could not execute the deed. He invited my attention to the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the aﬃdavit, which is reproduced below to the extent it is relevant: “I submit that after making the application and after issuance of NOC, my husband with a motor accident and died. Unfortunately, the Maruthi Car wherein we were travelling from Chittoor to Hyderabad met with an accident and my husband died in the spot and I and other children sustained grievous injuries. We admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. I was treated about two years and I spent Rs.6.00 lakhs to my treatment and Rs.5.00 lakhs to the treatment of my children. I was not able to walk for over 2 years. Meanwhile, the order granting mining lease was communicated to the Petitioner Company. I respectfully submit that due to the above said accident, I could not able to execute the lease deed for the said purpose. Immediately, after coming to know about the said proceedings, I approached the 1st respondent and came to know that by order, dated 02.03.2001 in Proceedings No.6014/R4-2B-2001, the Prospecting Licence granted in favour of the petitioner was revoked and security deposit was forfeited by the 1st respondent.” In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that after dismissal of the revision petition, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 18.01.2002 granting prospecting licence over the same area to Sri S.Babu Naidu. A perusal of the record shows that the said Babu Naidu got himself impleaded as respondent No.5 in the writ petition vide order, dated 09.09.2002 passed by this Court. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.5 Though the petitioner stated about herself and her husband meeting with a serious accident, in which, her husband died and she received serious injuries leading to her hospitalization for a substantial time, she did not state these reasons in the revision petition filed before respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that these facts could not be brought to the notice of respondent No.4 due to ill advice. The reasons put forth by the petitioner in this writ petition, if accepted, constitute suﬃcient cause for it’s failure to execute a deed. In my considered opinion, if the petitioner had brought these facts to the notice of respondent No.4, the result of the revision petition would have been diﬀerent. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to raise additional grounds in the revision petition and respondent No.4 is directed to consider and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.5. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall ﬁle additional grounds in the revision petition within a period of four (4) weeks and within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter, respondent No.4 shall dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni