MARUTHI GRANITES Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Rc.E1-3434-2002, dated 17-7-2004 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District (first respondent).

(2.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are M/s Maruti Granites, represented by Proprietor Sanka Venkata Subba Rao (petitioner) made an application to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad (third respondent) on 12-2-2001 for prospecting licence of black granite, in respect of eastern Ac.2-47 cents of the land in Sy.No.119 of Rajupalem Laxmipuram Village (RL Puram), Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Thereafter, third respondent, vide his Lr.No.968/Q1/2001, dated 12-2-2001 called for the remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal (second respondent) on the application of the petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No.181 Industries and Commerce (Mines-1) Department, dated 28-5-1998, who through his letter dated 21-2-2001, informed the third respondent has 'no objection' subject to the applicant paying Non-Agricultural Tax. Since petitioner failed to attend inspection and survey on four occasions, Director of Mines and Geology (fourth respondent) vide his proceedings dated 23-3-2002 rejected the application of the petitioner. Smt. S. Balamani Kumari through her G.P.A. (fifth respondent) filed O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ongole for declaration of her title to Acs.2.05 cents in Sy.No.l 19 of R.L Puram against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District Collector, Prakasam District, Respondents 2 to 4 and the proprietor of the petitioner and others, and filed I.A.No.968 of 2001 therein seeking an injunction restraining Aaluri Malathi, Sanka Venkata Subba Rao (i.e., proprietor of the petitioner), Sidda Raghava Rao, Bommisetty Prasada Rao, Bommisetty Ramanadha Rao, Bommisetty Srinivasa Rao and Bommisety Sudhakara Rao (Defendants 6 to 13 in the suit) or their representatives or by anybody at their instance from obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' and Mining lease, and to restrain Defendants 2 to 4 therein i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the first respondent herein and Respondents 2 and 3 herein, in respect of Acs.4.49 cents in Sy.No.119 of R.L. Puram, which was dismissed on 13-6-2002 on merits after enquiry. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an application for quarrying lease in respect of 1.000 hectare on the eastern side of Sy.No.119 of R.L. Puram to the third respondent, who again sought the remarks of second respondent who vide his report dated 19-6-2002 sent his no objection to the third respondent. On 29-8-2002, A.A.O. No.1758 of 2002, filed by the fifth respondent questioning the order dated 13-6-2002 in I.A.No.968 of 2001 in O.S. No.10 of 2001, was dismissed for default by a Division Bench of this Court. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent filed an application before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the NOC, dated 21-2-2001, issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. First respondent, by his order dated 4-9-2002 stayed the operation of the said NOC issued by the second respondent. So, petitioner filed an application before the first respondent to vacate the said order. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent filed C.M.P.No.16268 of 2002 for restoration of A.A.O.No.1758 of 2002, and a Division Bench of this Court, by its common order dated 12-9-2002 while allowing C.M.P. No.16268 of 2002, dismissed the A.A.O. holding:

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to state a few more facts, to make the narration of facts complete.