B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three writ appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since the subject matter that arises for consideration in all the appeals is one and the same.

( 2 ) W. A. No. 1913 of 2003 is filed against the order, dated 27-3-2003, of a learned stngle judge of this Court passed upon a writ petition (W. P. No. 10264 of 2000), filed by the 1st respondent - J. Ashok Kumar. The subject matter of the said writ petition was the order passed by the 2nd respondent - government of India, Ministry of Mines, in order No 77/2000 in revision application file no. 2 (8) 1999 - Rc. ll, dated 17-5-2000.

( 3 ) THE other two writ appeals are filed against the order, dated 19-1-2004, of a learned single Judge of this Court whereunder and whereby the learned judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the order of the State of Andhra Pradesh, sanctioning the mining lease in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 6 herein.

( 4 ) A short point that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the Act ) as applicable in andhra Pradesh, as it stood prior to 18-12-1999, as contended by the appellant? the said provision seeks to confer a preferential right for grant of licence or mining lease, as the case may be, upon the applicant whose application was received earlier over an applicant whose application was received later, in respect of the same land.

( 5 ) FOR the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties herein as they are arrayed in W. A. No. 1913 of 2003.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant centering around the aforesaid provision, a few relevant facts which are not in dispute may be noted at the outset.

( 7 ) THE appellant applied for grant of mining lease on 3-11-1995 for an extent of acs. 346-00 in Survey Nos. 343, 353, 354, 355, 357 7 358 of Jagatpally Village, peddamandadi Mandal, Mahabubnagar district, to Extract the minerals viz. Quartz and Feldspar which are major minerals. The 1st respondent also applied seeking grant of mining lease on 29-1 - 198 for an extent of Acs. 294-00 in Survey no. 343 of the same village. One, a. D. Gideon, the 6th respondent, also made an application on 3-1- 1996 seeking grant of mining lease for an extent of Acs. 360-00. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant s application dated 3-11-1995 is the first among all the three applications filed for grant of mining lease in respect of almost the same area admeasuring about more than 350 acres of land

( 8 ) THE Assistant Director of Mines and geology through letter, dated 25-11-1995, required the appellant to be present on 12-12-1995 to participate in the survey and inspection of the land in respect of which the appellant applied for grant of mining lease. The appellant admittedly did not respond to the said notice. Another notice, dated 15-3-1996, was given to the appellant requiring it to be present on 27-3- 1996 for the purposes, of inspection and survey of the land.

( 9 ) THE survey and inspection were undertaken on 17-5-1996 in the presence of the 6th respondent, since the appellant was not present even on 17-5-1996 though notices were served upon it requiring its presence in connection with the survey and inspection of the land.

( 10 ) UPON survey and inspection of the lana, it was found that the mineral deposits were available only in Survey No. 343/1 over an extent of Acs. 35-00 and not in the entire extent of the land in respect of which applications have been filed for grant of lease.

( 11 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances, the Assistant Director of mines and Geology found that the appellant herein did not evince any interest whatsoever to obtain the mining lease as it had chosen to remain consistently absent on all the days of inspection and survey. The Assistant Director, accordingly, recommended for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document