The writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company involved in production of Bulk Ferroy Alloy, for which purpose it requires large quantities of Manganese Ore.

2. Pursuant to the notification dated 25.1.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent under Rule 59(1)(a) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules') notifying the area to an extent of 8.23 cents situated in Sy.Nos.71, 78, 79, 91/6, 81/2 to 6 of Kondapalem Village for grant of mining lease (Manganese Ore), the petitioner-Company made an application on 16.6.2000. For the very same area, the 4th respondent herein also made an application on 27.5.2000. Having processed the applications received, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 12.10.2001, while informing the petitioner that it's 'application was proposed for rejection on the ground that the area applied was fully overlapping with the applied area of the prior applicant i.e., 4th respondent called upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why its application should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 2.11.2001. However, by order dated 5.12.2001, the 2nd respondent rejected the mining lease application of the petitioner. Under the same proceedings, the 4th respondent was provisionally granted the mining lease for a period of 20 years, subject to prior approval of the Government of India under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 (for short, "the Act"). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Company filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 22.8.2005. Hence, this writ petition, seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1 st respondent dated 22.8.2005 as well as the order of the 2nd respondent dated 5.12.2001 and to quash the same being. arbitrary and illegal.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the mining lease application of the 4th respondent was recommended for grant of lease under Section 11 (2) of the Act as their application was received earlier than t4e application of the writ petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down under subsection (3)(1) to (d) of Section 11 of the Act and therefore, its application was rightly rejected.

4. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that the petitioner canl10t claim any priority as end user on the ground that the mine was in close proximity from its production unit. At any rate, since the petitioner submitted its application only on 16.6.2000, whereas the 4th respondent made its application much prior to it i.e., on 22.5.2000, the 4th respondent alone was entitled for grant of lease under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under, and therefore, the orders of the Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

6. It is not in dispute that Manganese Ore is a mineral specified in Part-C of the 1 st Schedule to the Act. As per subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Act, no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease granted under the Act and the Rules made there under. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act further makes it clear that no mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act provides that in respect of any mineral specified in the 1st Schedule to the Act, no mining lease shall be grated except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Section 10 of the Act, provides the procedure for making application for mining lease and Section 11 provides for preferential right of certain persons for obtaining a mining lease.

7. Having regard to the controversy invo