GUDA ANJANEYULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P,.No. 25806 of 2001: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings vide No. 17752/R3(2)/2001, dated 29-8-2001 granting prospecting licence and the quarry licence vide proceedings No. 34354/R3/2/ 2001, dated 12-11-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by mala fide, misrepresentation and fraud and contrary to the directions of this Court issued in W.P.No. 7303 of 1993, dated 16-2-2000.

(2.) When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is brought to my notice that having aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Government, but the same has been treated as Revision and the same is pending.

(3.) At this juncture, it is contended by Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 25806 of 2001 that the petitioners are claiming title over the property and filed O.S. 12 of 2000 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Ongole seeking for declaration of title and all the official respondents are arrayed as defendants therein and that the respondents having received the notices and aware of the proceedings, ought not to have processed the application of the 7th respondent for the grant of prospecting licence and also the quarry lease and that the NOC issued on 18-3-2000 is contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 7303 of 1993, dated 16-2-2001 by which the Collector was directed to enquire into this matter and ascertain the facts from the revenue records and only thereafter issue No Objection Certificate in respect of S. Nos. 55/1 to 55/6 of R.L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal. As on the date of the enquiry, the petitioners' application is pending and that the Mandal Revenue Officer having knowledge about the judgment of this Court, ought to have referred the matter to the Collector. It is further contended that the petitioners filed an appeal, but the same was treated as a revision and the same is pending. Availing of alternate remedy is not a bar nor efficacious and the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by this Court, which cuts the very root of the case and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.