JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Writ Appeal 1062 of 1991 preferred by the Appellant. The. main issue in this appeal is the interpretation to be placed upon sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

3. Survey No. 650/1 Palukur Village in Kurnool District is of an extent of 40 acres. It contains a minor mineral, lime stone slab. One Venkatesan was granted a lease for the said extent earlier. The term of his lease was expiring on 20-8-87. He applied for renewal of the lease 90 days before the expiry of his lease as contemplated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the said rules. On 17-7-87 however he withdrew his application. On 18-7-87 his son, the fourth respondent, applied for grant of lease in respect of 18 acres in the said survey number. No orders were passed thereon by the appropriate authorities. On 10-8-87 the appellant, a Labour Co-operative Society, applied for lease in respect of the entire extent. of 40 acres. Both these applications remained pending till the expiry of 90 days from the respective dates they were filed, with the result that they were deemed to have been rejected. Both of them filed revisions before the Government which were allowed and their applications remitted for disposal in accordance with law to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Cuddapah.

4. On 17-2-88, fifth respondent which too is a Labour Co-operative Society applied for lease in respect of the entire extent of 40 acres.

5. On 3-10-1988, the Deputy Director passed orders granting lease in respect of 18 acres in favour of fourth respondent (son of the previous lessee) and the remaining 22 acres in favour of the fifth respondent. The application filed by the appellant was rejected as barred by time. Against the said order the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was rejected in view of the alternative remedy of appeal to Government, provided by Rules. Appellant accordingly preferred an appeal to the Government which was dismissed on 28-3-1989. He then filed the writ petition No. 4748/89 from which the present appeal arises. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge, who held that the grant of lease in favour of the fourth respondent is proper and valid but that the rejection of the application filed by the appellant is illegal. The grant in favour of the fifth respondent was set aside and the Deputy Director directed to reconsider the applications of the appellant and the fifth respondent in accordance with the rules. Against the judgment, of the learned Single Judge the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 1082 of 1991 while the fifth respondent preferred cross-objections. Both of them were heard by a Division Bench which disposed of the Writ Appeal in the following terms:

(1) The order of the learned single Judge confirming the grant in favour of the fourth respondent is unexceptionable.

(2) The learned Judge was not right in setting aside the grant in favour of the fifth respondent. The grant in favour of the fifth respondent is equally valid and proper. Accordingly the Writ Appeal was dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the fifth respondent were allowed.

6. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench erred in holding that the application filed by the appellant on 10-8-87 was barred by limitation and also in holding that the application of the fourth respondent was well in time. He submitted that if the appellants application submitted within 30 days of the expiry of the lease (in favour of Venkatesan, the previous lessee) is barred by time so is the application of the fifth respondent which was filed long after the expiry of the said lease. The learned counsel also assailed the correctness of the holding that the application of the fourth respondent was within time and that it was rightly allo