HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.9491 of 2011 Date: November 09, 2011 Between: S. Asif Basha … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Dept., Hyderabad & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.9491 of 2011 O R D E R: Petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease in lime stone (Black) over an extent of Ac.10.33 cents in Survey No.286 of Palkur village, Banaganapally Mandal, Kurnool District, on 02.02.2009. The petitioner states that for the same survey number 5th respondent had earlier made an application in the year 2005, but the Deputy Director of Mines Geology, rejected the same on 13.7.2006. However, on appeal filed against the same, the Director of Mines and Geology, by order dated 09.11.2006, set aside the rejection directing the Deputy Director of Mines to inspect the area and confirm whether it falls on buffer zone as Darga Vagu etc. The petitioner further states that in pursuance of the said order of the appellate authority, a survey was conducted and the survey report confirms that the area applied for the petitioner is in the buffer zone and to that extent, the survey report shows that the 5th respondent also accepted the same. The petitioner therefore contends that the 5th respondent’s application for all purposes stood rejected on physical confirmation of applied area coming in the buffer zone and thereby not available for grant of lease. Consequently, the petitioner contends that he being the first applicant after exclusion of 5th respondent, his application is entitled to be considered on priority. Alleging that the official respondents are likely to grant lease to the 5th respondent overlooking the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 2. While issuing notice before admission on 08.4.2011, this Court directed that in the meanwhile no lease shall be granted either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.5. Now, vacate stay petitions have been filed together with counter by the 5th respondent. The official respondents also filed a counter-affidavit and as all the learned counsel requested that the writ petition itself be heard, the same is being heard and disposed of at this stage. 3. Leaned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that though the application of the 5th respondent dated 28.9.2005 was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, the said rejection was set aside by the Director of Mines and Geology on appeal. The leaned counsel for the 5th respondent therefore submits that the said application is very much alive and no rejection order subsists. 4. Leaned Government Pleader points out that even according to the respondents the very lease application of the 5th respondent dated 28.9.2005 is pending, as the appellate authority had set aside the rejection order and subsequently five more applications were received including that of the writ petitioner. The official respondents have specifically taken a stand in their counter-affidavit in paragraph 17 that the survey conducted as per the directions of the appellate authority was not finalized, as the Mandal Surveyor was not present during the said survey and the surveyor who conducted the survey was unable to identify the village stones. It is therefore pleaded that resurvey of the area will be taken up in the presence of Mandal Surveyor. Consequently, the official respondents in their counter-affidavit state that all the applicants viz., 5th respondent, writ petitioner as well as the other applicants, who have applied for the same survey number will not be notified and their applications would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent’s application stands rejected in view of the survey conducted as per the order of the appellate authority and the conclusions recorded therein that the area falls in the buffer zone. I am also not able to accept his contention that the 5th respondent has given up the claim and accepted the said survey. It is not in dispute that there is no order of rejection of application of the 5th respondent and in that view of the matter his application, in law, is deemed to be pending. The counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 4 have given list of applications pending chronologically which shows that the 5th respondent who has applied on 28.9.2005 as well as the petitioner who has applied on 02.02.2009 apart from four other applicants are aspiring for grant of quarry lease and all their applications are required to be considered in accordance with Rule 12(2) which reads as hereunder: Rule 12. Grant of lease:- (1) … … … … (2)Whenever more than one application are received for grant of a quarry lease [for minor minerals {except sand, granite useful for cutting and polishing and marble] and also the minerals specified under [items at Sl.No.1 to 3(a) under Schedule-I to Rule 10] the [Deputy director] shall dispose of the applications in order of preference specified below:- (i) Applications of Government Department and Government Corporations and Companies; (ii) Applications of Labour Contract Co-operative Societies; (iii) Applications of unemployed persons who possess any recognized qualification in Geology, Geophysics, or Mining Engineering or any other allied subjects; (iv) Other applications; [Provided that the above priorities shall prevail if the subsequent applications are received within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of the first application, otherwise the applications shall be disposed off in the order of their receipt.] 6. Various survey maps are also placed on record to contend that the area applied for by each applicant is different. If that be so, respondents 1 to 4 shall be free to consider the applications pending before it with reference to the area applied for by applying the rule aforesaid and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent fairly submits that if the area applied for the petitioner is different from that of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent would have no objection for grant of lease of that area to the petitioner. In any case, all these matters are for respondents 1 to 4 to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the categorical statement of respondents 1 to 4 in their counter that all the applicants will be notified and considered as per law, there is no warrant for the petitioner’s apprehension that any lease would be granted to any of the applicant overlooking the priority under Section Rule 12 (2) extracted above. 7. The writ petition therefore is dismissed giving liberty to respondents 1 to 4 to consider all the applications in terms of what is reiterated by them in paragraph 20 of their counter-affidavit. No order as to costs. ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: November 09, 2011. BSB