STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. D VITTAL GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeals Nos. 347 and 348 of 1980, arise out of the orders passed in miscellaneous petitions filed in W.P. Nos. 2533 and 2479 of 1080. Common grievance is made regarding certain Government orders pertaining to leases of mining operating by the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions on one hand and the rival petitioners in W.Ps. 2060 and 2074 of 1980 on the other. Hence, all these could be disposed of by a common order. They arise under the following circumstances : The petitioners in W.P. Humbers 247H and 2533 of 1980, were the lessees under the leases granted by the Government, for quarrying limestone mines. The leases granted by the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, for a period of five years expired at the end of March, 1980. During the lease period, the Director of Mines and Geology asked the petitioners to stop quarrying operations on the ground of violation of the conditions of lease. Therefore, a writ petition, W.P. No. 2120 of 1977, was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 2479 of 1980 arid the same was allowed quashing the order of the Director of Mines and Geology. Thereafter, on 24-9-1977, the Deputy Director of Mines, and Geology issued a show cause notice alleging certain irregularities which was duly replied. However, the lease of the petitioner was cancelled along with the leases of 10 others who were similarly situated and so he preferred a revision to the State Government on 22-12-1977. W.P. No. 54 of 1978, which was filed by the petitioner challeging the cancellation was eventually disposed of by this Court on 17-4-1979, with a direction to continue the lease. The petitioner also filed a renewal application on 8-1-1980, before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. On 4-4-1980, the revision filed earlier before the Government was allowed with a direction to the Director of Mines and Geology to extend the lease period. This decision of the Govt. was communicated on 30-4-1980. While so. W.P. Nos. 2060 and 2074 of 1980 were filed by third parties on 6-5-1980, challenging the validity of the directions given by the Government. The quarry lea.se granted to the petitioner expired on 9-4-1980. Since the renewal application made on 8-1-1680, could not be disposed of by the Deputy Director because of the pendency of the revision before the Government within three months period within which he is expected either to renew or reject the application as per the statutory provisions, it must be deemed to have been rejected. An appeal was preferred on 12-5-1980, before the Director. While the petitioner was continuing to work on the mines, on 23-5-1980, the Forest Range Officer, Kondangal, directed the petitioner to stop quarrying operations. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2479 of 1980 and an interim direction was grunted enabling the petitioner to continue the quarrying operations. Precisely the same happened in case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2533/80. The interim orders were made absolute on 19-6-1980 and there-tore, W, A. Nos. 347 and 348 of 1980 were preferred wherein on 7-7-1980, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears and continue the quarrying operations.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 2060 of 1980 tiled an application for granting lease in his favour on 14-4-1980 as on that date, the lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2479 of 1960 stood expired. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Government in revision in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2479 of 1980, he filed W.P. No. 2060 of 1980 on 6-5-1980. It was admitted and an interim direction was ordered to maintain status quo. Likewise, the petitioner in W.P. No. 2074 of 1980, filed an application for the grant of lease on 10-10-1977, though on the said date, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P. 2533 of 1980, was in subsistence. That application was again renewed on 24-12-1977. However, because of the eventual disposal of the revision by the Government in favour oi the petitioner in W.P. No. 2533 of 1980, W.P. No. 2074 of 1980 was filed on 6-5-1980, in which also, this Court after admitting the writ petition, granted interim direction to maintain status quo,

(3.) The prayer in W.P. No. 2479 of 1980 is for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to stop the quarrying operations of the petitioner. Same is the prayer in W.P. No. 2533 of 1980 as well. W. P. No. 2479/80 :