1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondents 1 to 4, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and 6.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of quarrying of mines and is the Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ganesh Mines and Minerals. The sixth respondent firm originally obtained a mining lease in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.12-10 guntas in survey Nos.226, 227, 255, 256 and 257 of Remaddula Vilage, Panagal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District for extraction of Quartz and Feldspar for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.228, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 09.08.2005.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the sixth respondent firm approached him and enquired about his willingness to take the lease, as they were unable to continue the mining operations. The petitioner accepted the said offer and applied for transfer of mining lease in favour of M/s.Sri Ganesh Mines and Minerals. After following due procedure, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.31, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 04.02.2008, transferring the leasehold rights in favour of M/s.Sri Ganesh Mines and Minerals of which the petitioner is a sole proprietor.

4. While so, the first respondent issued the impugned memo No.3879/M.I(1)/2009, dated 28.08.2009, keeping the G.O.Ms.No.228 dated 09.08.2005 granting mining lease in favour of the sixth respondent and G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 04.02.2008 transferring the said lease in favour of the petitioner in abeyance until further orders. The second respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry into the entire matter by appointing the third respondent as enquiry officer. On a reading of the impugned memo it would indicate that it was issued on the representation of the fifth respondent dated 13.07.2009. Challenging the said memo dated 28.08.2009, the present writ petition was filed.

5. One B.Ram Reddy, the Managing Director of the sixth respondent firm, filed a counter-affidavit stating that the sixth respondent was a registered firm consisting of six partners. Under clause 11 of the Deed of Partnership, the sole authority was vested with him to represent the sixth respondent firm before any authority and it includes the transfer of the leasehold rights of the firm. While so, the fifth respondent and his sister relinquished their rights in the firm under a notarised affidavit on 27.06.2003 and since then, they are not partners in the firm. The remaining four partners continued the affairs of the firm. Since the sixth respondent was unable to continue the mining operations, it offered to transfer the same in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner applied for transfer of mining lease. Thus G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 04.02.2008 was issued. While so, the fifth respondent gave a complaint to the official respondents stating that the signatures of the fifth respondent and his sister were forged and the leasehold rights were transferred without valid authority. The matter was entrusted to the fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry and during the course of enquiry the fourth respondent asked the fifth respondent and his sister to give their specimen signatures, since they are disputing the correctness of the signatures on the notarized affidavit. But, they refused to give their specimen signatures and failed to attend further enquiry. Therefore, the fourth respondent submitted his report to the third respondent vide his letter dated 28.05.2009. The fourth respondent in turn submitted further report to the second respondent stating that B.Ram Reddy is the sole representative of the sixth respondent firm and he got power to affect the transfer of mining lease. However, the first respondent issued impugned memo dated 28.08.2009 keeping the orders of transfer in abeyance. It is further stated that the fifth respondent filed a private complaint and the matter was referred to the II Town Police Station, Mahaboobnagar and a case was register