B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writpetitions may be disposed of by a common order as requested by all the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned advocate General as common question arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of all these writ petitions is almost similar.

( 2 ) ALL the petitioners are stated to have submitted quarry lease applicationson different dates for grant of lease for cut or dressed granite. The applications are filed on various dates before the Director of Mines and Geology with regard to different extents of lands available for grant of quarry lease in different villages in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The applications are filed under the provisions of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short the rules ). Some of the applications are filed by the pattedars themselves for grant of quarry lease in their own lands.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petitions, almost in all cases after receiving the applications the work relating to inspection, survey and demarcation has been completed. The concerned Asst. Directors and the Deputy Directors of Mines and Geology are stated to have forwarded the applications with favourable recommendations to the first respondent.

( 4 ) THE complaint in the instant writ petitions relates to the inaction on thepart of the first respondent in not disposing of the applications. The petitioners under the said circumstances pray for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the said inaction on the part of the Director of Mines and Geology in not disposing of their respective applications as illegal and arbitrary apart from being violative of rule 12 (5) (c) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioners consequently pray for issuance of an appropriate further direction to the first respondent to dispose of the applications within a specified period of time in accordance with the Rules.

( 5 ) AT this stage, it is required to notice that many of similar writ petitionswere disposed of by this Court at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Director of Mines and Geology to consider and dispose of the applications filed by the applicants in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by the Court. The directions, on the face of which, appear to be inconsequential one and such directions were issued on the assumption that the Director is duty bound to consider every application and take an appropriate decision thereon.

( 6 ) SINCE these writ petitions were corning up almost every day before theadmission Court, I thought it fit to direct the Government to file counter- affidavit explaining as to why the applications have not been disposed of and as to why each of the petitioners was being driven to the Court for getting such an apparent inconsequential direction. I have also requested the learned advocate General to appear in the matter and assist the Court and passed the following order:"the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, industries and Commerce Department shall stand impleaded as the 4th respondent. Issue notice before admission to all the respondents. The 4th respondent-the Principal Secretary shall file counter affidavit explaining as to why earlier directions were issued directing the 1st respondent herein not to consider the applications for granting quarry lease and also shall state as to under what circumstances further directions were given directing the Director to consider the applications pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The Court would like to know as to what is the policy of the Government in the matter. The Director, 1st respondent herein shall also file the counter-affidavit stating all the required facts in detail as to why the applications of the petitioner and the similar applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document