1. Heard Sri S. Venkat Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, the learned Government Pleader for Forests, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and also Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior Counsel, representing the respective respondents.

2. The writ petitioner M/s. Exotic Granite Exports, filed the present Writ Petition praying for quashing the proceedings of 1st respondent in Memo No.1220/M.II(1)/07, dated 16-3-2007 (P1) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and financial rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rules made under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4.916 Hectares of forest land in Compartment No.1148 of Ingurthy East R.F. Mahaboobabad Range, Warangal South Division, Warangal District and to pass such other suitable orders.

3. W.P.M.P.No.34520/07 is an application praying for amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition and the same reads as hereunder:

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent herein in Memo No.1220/M.II(1)/07 dated 16-3-2007 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms.No.135, EFS & T Department, dated 4-12-2007 by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the same are arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, abuse of process of Court, gross contempt of Court, violative of principles of natural justice and the financial rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rules made under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4.916 Hectares of forest land in Compartment No.1148 of Ingurthy East R.F. Mahaboobabad Range, Warangal South Division, Warangal District and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

4. The Counsel representing the respective parties made elaborate submissions - Sri Venkat Reddy, learned senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner stating that in the facts and circumstances, the amendment application to be allowed and on the contrary the respective Counsel representing the respondents opposing the same on the ground that it is totally a different cause of action and hence amendment application cannot be allowed.

5. It is averred in para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application that notice was ordered in the Writ Petition on 12-4-2007. The 2nd respondent did not file any counter so far in the Writ Petition and in the Stay Petition. All of a sudden, on 7-12-2007, the Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent in the High Court served a copy of G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 4-12-2007 on the petitioner's Counsel. The 2nd respondent also refused to make available the records of the 2nd respondent for perusal of the Counsel for the petitioner, despite the letter dated 2-12-2007 addressed to the Government Pleader for respondent No.2 under the Writ Rules. It is further stated in para-4 that by and under the G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 4-12-2007 the 2nd respondent cancelled its orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.8, EFS & T Department, dated 11-1-2007 in favour of the petitioner and directed the 3rd respondent to submit the proposal of M/s. APMDC Limited., the 6th respondent, under the Forest Conversation Act for diversion of the said area for e