AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) AS similar questions of fact and law are arising in these two writ appeals, they are considered and disposed of together by this common order with the consent of parties.

( 2 ) WRIT Appeal No. 2047 of 2001 is directed against the order passed in W. P. No. 23017 of 2000 dated 28. 8. 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court - G. Raghuram, J. The relief sought for in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the proceedings No. 35205/r3 (2)/92 dated 11. 7. 2000 and to quash them as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to implement the proceedings in Memo No. 21163/m. II (1) 97-13 dated 30. 10. 1999. The said writ petition was contested by the respondents therein. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge on the ground that the appellant - writ petitioner has not challenged either the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 23, dated 22-2-1999 or the prospecting licence issued by the State Government to the A. P. M. D. C. The learned Judge held that the reasons stated by the third respondent, Director of Mines and Geology in rejecting the quarry lease application of the appellant-petitioner have not been demonstrated to suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly. The writ appeal was filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.

( 3 ) IT was urged in the grounds of appeal that the action of the Government in keeping the application of the appellant pending for a period of nine years pleading that the land is required for animal husbandry and later on that the land is reserved for State Government itself for mining operations and subsequently selling the land to A. P. M. D. C. without offering land to the appellant is mala fide and not valid. It was further urged that the total extent of land is Ac. 268. 70 cents out of which prospecting licence was granted to A. P. M. D. C. in respect of 36. 042 hectares only and the remaining land is available for granting lease to the appellant whose application is earliest in point of time.

( 4 ) WRIT Appeal No. 2048 of 2001 was filed by the very same appellant impleading the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Secretary to Industries and Commerce Department, Director of Mines and Geology and A. P. Mining Development Corporation Limited.

( 5 ) THE appeal was filed against the judgment in W. P. No. I190 of 2001 dated 29. 8. 2001 passed by the same learned Judge. The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein to declare the tender Notification in tender dated 4. 1. 2001 so far as it relates to an extent of Ac. 68. 86 cents in S. Nos. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. L. Puram, Cheemakurthy Mandalam, Prakasham district as illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the directions of the Government in the revision Order dated 30. 10. 1999. A consequential prayer was also made for directing the respondents to grant quarry lease of Ac. 68. 86 cents in S. Nos. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. L. Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasham district for quarrying granite mineral by the petitioner-appellant. This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge along with two other writ petitions - W. P. Nos. 20609 and 25959 of 2000 by a common judgment. The learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition by a well considered and well reasoned order with particular reference to the provisions of law and also with reference to the case law on the subject.

( 6 ) THE learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2001 on the ground that the appellant petitioner has not either pleaded or shown to the Court that they have made an application for prospecting licence under the current regulatory environment consequent on the 1999 Rules or that any application was made prior to the applications for prospecting licence by the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation. There is thus no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document