( 1 ) WRIT Appeal No. 1191 of 1996 is from the judgment of our learned brother M. H. S. Ansari, J. , dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant - M/s. Pallava Granites Industries India (P) Ltd. , - seeking a mandamus to the State government, the Director and the Assistant director of Mines and Geology to extend the period of lease from 6-7-1996 to 4-1 -2010 in its favour and permit it to carry on quarry operations in the land covered by Survey nos. 105/1, 105/2 and 105/3 admeasuring ac. 4. 32 cents, Ac. 1. 52 cents and Ac. 4. 49 cents respectively situate in R. L. Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasham district and consequently issue despatch permits for transportation of the quarried black granite and also restrain the surface owners (pattadars) - respondents 4 to 7 - from interfering with the quarrying operations in respect of the above land. The learned judge was of the view that the relief sought by the appellant was barred by the principle of resjudicata because of the earlier decision of another learned single judge (Y. Bhaskar rao,j. ,) in Writ Petitionno. l5615 of 1994 dated 7-10-1994, which was inter partes, in which it was specifically held that the extension of lease for further period could be obtained only with the consent of the pattadars. The pattedars did not give their consent for extension of the lease period but instead themselves applied for grant of lease in respect of the same land and the State government by an order dated 28-8-1996 granted a lease for a period of 15 years. In consequence of this order of the Government, a lease deed was executed on 2-9-1996 in favour of the pattedars and accordingly proceedings were issued on 2-9-1996 by the assistant Director, Mines and Geology in ref. No. 4310/q. 1/96 permitting the pattedars to commence quarrying operations. Questioning the legality of this lease in favour of the pattedars, Writ Petition No. 19865 of 1996 was filed by the appellant herein.

( 2 ) AS the writ petition and the writ appeal are inter-connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is referred to as the lessee and the surface owners (the unofficial respondents) as pattedars.

( 3 ) THE primary issue for our consideration is: Whether the judgment of our learned brother Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. , rendered in Writ Petition No. 15615 of 1994 dated 7-10-1994 between inter paries constitutes res judicata ? The incidental issue for consideration is whether the State government, as a condition precedent for execution of the lease deed for excavation of a minor mineral, can insist upon the lessee to obtain the consent of the pattedar (surface owner) in the absence of a specific statutory rule enjoining the government to do so?

( 4 ) GRANITE, a valuable foreign exchange earner, is a minor mineral, the excavation of which is regulated by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act") and the Andhra pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules") made by the state Government under Section 15 of the act.

( 5 ) ON 22-8-1991, the pattedars executed a lease deed in favour of the lessee for a period of five years ending with 5-7-1996 agreeing to lease out the surface rights in favour of the latter in respect of the land in question subject to the conditions specified therein. The conditions include that the lessee shall pay every year Rs. 1,50,000/- to the pattedars at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cubic metre for 150 cubic metres of granite and in case more granite was quarried, the rate of payment shall be at Rs. 1,000/- for every cubic metre in excess thereof. Even if there are no quarrying operations, the lessee has undertaken to pay Rs. 1,5 0,000/- per year to the pattedars. After the expiry of the lease period, the lessee shall handover possession to the pattedars and the security deposit of rs. 1,00,000/- shall be returned by the pattedars after the lessee handed