HARI SREEDHAR Vs. C.V.MOHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the subject matter of all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

(2.) THIS Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 07.05.2010 in Proceedings No.1343/R6-1/2010 passed by the second respondent-Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad on the basis of the order dated 24.11.2008 in Memo No.14258/M.II (1)/2008-2 passed by the first respondent, which itself is void being without jurisdiction, and the consequential order dated 12.05.2010 in Proceedings No.11241/Q/2009 passed by the third respondent and also consequential Deed of Renewal of quarry lease dated 12.05.2010 in Proceedings No.11241/Q/2009 executed by the third respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, void and without jurisdiction, and if necessary, declaring the order dated 24.11.2008 in Memo No.14258/M.II (1)/2008-2 passed by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, void and without jurisdiction.

(3.) AS several persons applied for quarry lease in respect of the land in survey no.225/120 and other survey numbers of Yerraballigudem Village, the third respondent instructed the surveyor to prepare a sketch of the areas in respect of which lease had already been granted and the remaining area, to process those applications. At that point of time, it was found that the fifth respondent was carrying on quarry operations illegally in a place different from the place other than the area transferred, and as such, vide letter dated 6.8.2008, the third respondent requested necessary instructions from the second respondent with regard to granting dispatch permits. But, however, by proceedings dated 19.8.2008, the second respondent appears to have directed the third respondent to issue dispatch permits to the fifth respondent. Challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 6.8.2008, the fifth respondent filed a revision before the Government under Rule 35A of the Rules, 1966 and the said revision was disposed of by the first respondent by order dated 24.11.2008 granting permission to the second respondent to make change in the sketch appended to the lease deed. The said order was passed based on the representation of the second respondent as a mistake cropped up at the time of processing the application of the original licensee M/s. Blaze Granites Private Limited wrongly demarcating the area in the sketch over 180 meters away from the mineral deposit and at the request of the fifth respondent to rectify the execution sketch. Challenging the said order of the first respondent dated 24.11.2008, one of the applicants for grant of quarry lease M/s. Karunamai Granites filed Writ Petition No.9764 of 2009, which was disposed of by this court on 25.4.2011 holding that the revision filed by the fifth respondent is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, and that if the fifth respondent wanted rectification of the sketch, it should have first approached the second respondent, who is, admittedly, the authority competent and who has actually granted the lease in favour of the original grantee. When it was brought to the notice of this Court that the application of M/s. Karunamai Granites for grant of quarry lease in respect of the land in survey no.225/120 of Yerraballigudem Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land') where the fifth respondent was illegally quarrying the mineral, which was pending with the second respondent as on the date of passing of the order dated 24.11.2008 by the first respondent, was rejected subsequently on 5.6.2009 and as no notice was issued to the applicant before passing order in the purported revision, this court gave liberty to M/s. Karunamai Granites to file appeal before the Government against the order rejecting its application, and directed the Government that if any such appeal is filed, the claim of the fifth respondent for rectification of the sketch appended to the lease of the original grantee be considered afresh ignoring the earlier order of the Government dated 24.11.2008. In other words, order of the first respondent dated 24.11.2008 is held to be illegal and without any authority. All the applications for grant of quarry lease pending before the second respondent in respect of land in survey no.225/120 were rejected on 5.6.2009 by the second respondent. So, petitioner filed an application on 24.6.2010 for grant of quarry lease in respect of land admeasuring 2.00 hectares in survey no.225/120 duly enclosing the sketch earmarking the area in respect of which the quarry lease application was submitted. As on the date of the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease, no other application for grant of quarry lease in respect of the said area, was pending before the second respondent. As the application of the petitioner for quarry lease was not processed in accordance with law, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.28428 of 2011 against respondents 1 to 3 herein challenging their inaction. In the said Writ Petition, fourth respondent was also impleaded with the leave of the court. On 23.11.2011, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents therein to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. As per the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.9764 of 2009, M/s. Karunamai Granites filed an appeal before the first respondent wherein interim order was passed on 12.9.2011 granting stay of operation of the order of the Government dated 24.11.2008, which had already been set aside by this Court. The fifth respondent filed Writ Petition No.26721 of 2011 on the ground that though M/s. Karunamai Granites filed a Memo seeking to withdraw the appeal, the said order was passed. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 10.10.2011 with certain observations and directions to the Government. Against the said order, the fifth respondent filed Writ Appeal No.828 of 2011, but in the said appeal, it sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition itself. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were dismissed as withdrawn.