VADDE LABOUR CONTRACT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings No. 6147/Q.2/94 dated 28- 12-1994 of the 2nd respondent in granting mining lease in favour of 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner, a Labour Co-operative Society, applied on 29-12-1994 for a fresh lease for mining slate stone to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent, in an extent of 4 hectares equivalent to 10 acres of land in Sy.No.787 of Chandaluru village of Darsi Mandal of Prakasam District. There was an existing lease in favour of the 4th respondent, which expired on 19-12-1994. As per the Rules, 4th respondent did not apply for renewal of the lease within the time prescribed. However, 4th respondent also made an application for grant of fresh lease in his favour on 21-11-1994 for the same land. The lease was granted in favour of the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 28-12-1994, without considering the claims of the petitioner-society. Copy of the order granting lease by the 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent was not communicated to the 3rd respondent, who has to implement the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent without notice to it as the application filed by the petitioner-society for grant of lease was pending. The application ofthe 4th respondent also being an application for grant of fresh lease, the same has to be considered on par with the application of the petitioner and as per Rule 12(2) of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, preference ought to have been given to the petitioner, as the petitioner is a labour co-operative society. In order to circumvent the same, the impugned order is passed with an antedate.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 3 contested this writ petition stating that the 4th respondent is an existing lessee. The 4th respondent made an application on 19-11-1994 through the Assistant Director of Mines, who forwarded the same on 21 -11 -1994 and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 23-11-1994. After due inspection of the site on 28-12-1994 the impugned order waspassed granting lease in favour ofthe 4th respondent, as on that date there was no other rival applicant. Petitioner's application dated 29-12-! 994 was forwarded by third respondent on 5-1-1995 and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 9-1-1995. On the same day, the 2nd respondent contacted the Government Pleader in the High Court requesting him to send his opinion as to how the application of the petitioner dated 29-12-1994 has to be disposed of, as the 2nd respondent already passed an order on 28-12-1994 granting the lease in favour of the 4th respondent. On the same day, a letter was also addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Director informing the granting of lease in favour of the 4th respondent and also the receipt of application from the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.