At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition pertains to a dispute with regard to grant of Prospecting Licence (PL) in favour of respondent No.4 by respondent No.1 to the extent of Hc.2.585 of land in Survey No.58 of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District.

For disposal of this writ petition, a few facts need to be mentioned. One M/s.Hemanth Mines & Minerals was granted mining lease for black granite over Hc.4.000 of land in Survey No.58/P of Budawada Village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District on 03.12.1994. The said lease was terminated by respondent No.2 on 24.02.2000. The revision petition filed by M/s.Hemanth Mines and Minerals against the order of termination was dismissed by respondent No.1 by order, dated 03.01.2001. Aggrieved by the said order, M/s.Hemanth Mines and Minerals filed W.P.No.496 of 2001 and in W.P.M.P.No.580 of 2001, this Court suspended the order of termination by interim order, dated 19.01.2011.

While the revision petition of M/s.Hemanth Mines and Minerals was pending before respondent No.1, respondent No.4 made his application for grant of PL on 05.06.2000 before respondent No.2. Following a show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2, the application of respondent No.4 was rejected on 01.03.2005 on the ground that as the termination order was suspended by this Court, which was subsisting, the application of respondent No.4 cannot be granted. A few days before the said rejection order, the petitioner filed an application on 17.02.2005 for grant of mining lease over Hc.3.000 of land in the same survey number. The petitioner also got impleaded himself in W.P.No.496 of 2001, which was eventually dismissed on 31.10.2007.

While the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease was pending, respondent No.4 has filed a revision before respondent No.1 on 16.10.2006 against order, dated 01.03.2005, rejecting his application for grant of PL. By the impugned order, dated 29.05.2009, respondent No.1 has allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 and directed grant of PL in his favour to the extent of Hc.2.585 of land. Assailing this order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

At the hearing, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following contentions – (1) the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 under Rule 35A of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) is barred by limitation, as neither the said revision was filed within the stipulated time of 90 days nor a request was made for condonation of delay nor respondent No.1 has specifically condoned the delay in filing the revision petition; (2) after the petitioner and another agency, by name, M/s.Yak Granites Industries Private Limited, got themselves impleaded in the writ petition filed by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 held hearings, the last of which was on 08.02.2008, during which, a report was called for from respondent No.2 on the issue of the alleged overlapping of the mining areas with M/s.Yak Granites Industries Limited, that after receipt of the report, a copy of the same was not supplied to the petitioner nor a further hearing was held, that respondent No.1 has taken an affidavit from respondent No.4 surreptitiously to the effect that he will be satisfied if he is granted PL over Hcs.2.585 of land and that therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 suffers from serious procedural illegality, apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice; (3) by the time, the impugned order was passed on 29.05.2008, the Ministry was constituted, following general elections and a new Minister has taken charge and the said Minister has not held fresh personal hearing before the revision was disposed of; and (4) the mining lease having already been granted in favour of M/s.Hemanth Mines and Minerals, which pr