M KRISHNA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the rejection of the application of the revision petitioner for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 1.494 hectares in Sy.No.103 (P) of Konidena Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District, petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) The facts, which are not in controversy, are one K. Nageswara Rao applied for prospecting licence over 2 hectares of land in Sy.No.103 (P) of Konidena Village, which was to expire on 17-8-2002. During the pendency of that licence i.e. on 14-8-2002, revision petitioner submitted an application for quarry lease for colour granite in the said sy.no. in Form No.'N' as per Rule 12(5) of the A.P. Minor, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Fourth respondent also gave an application on 19-8-2002 for quarry lease for 3 hectares in the said sy.no. The Director of Mines and Geology, in his proceedings dated 23-10-2004, while rejecting the quarry lease application of the revision petitioner as premature, granted quarry lease to the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the said order of the Director of Mines and Geology, revision petitioner preferred a Revision under Rule 35-A of the Rules to the Government on 27-10-2004, which was dismissed on 12-2-2005. Questioning the same revision petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though elaborate arguments were addressed by both sides the revisional authority without adverting to any of the contentions raised, mechanically and without proper application of mind, dismissed the revision. It is her contention that the Director of Mines and Geology instead of passing an order on the application submitted by the petitioner, had, in the order granting quarry lease to the fourth respondent, observed that the application of the petitioner for quarry is rejected as it is premature without assigning any reasons as to how it is premature. It is her contention that the application submitted by the petitioner during the subsistence of prospecting licence of K. Nageswara Rao is not and cannot be premature in view of the ratio in Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Palikur, Kurnool Distt. Rep. by its Secretary v. Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 147. It is her contention that since as per Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules, when there is plurality of applications the earliest applicant is entitled to preference over the others and if a subsequent applicant's case has to be considered, prior permission of the Government, after recording reasons, has to be obtained and since admittedly no such permission is obtained and since petitioner's application is earlier to that of 4th respondent, petitioner alone is entitled to the quarry lease more so because as per the note appended to Rule 12(5) of the Rules, just above Rule 12(6) of the Rules reads: