A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the notice bearing No.9315/Q/2011, dated 11.04.2012 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District/fifth respondent herein and the proceedings of the District Collector, Prakasam District/third respondent herein vide Rc.No.E1/780/2012, dated 03.04.2012.

2. On an application made by the petitioner on 26.11.2010 for grant of quarry lease for Road Metal and Gravel in respect of area admeasuring Ac.10.000 hectares in Sy.No.788/2 of Bodduvanipalem Village, Korisepadu Mandal, Prakasam District, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/fifth respondent herein called for the report from the Tahsildar, Korisepadu as to the classification of the land and its availability. Responding to the same, the Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.L.P/161/2011, dated 03.05.2011, issued No-Objection for grant of lease. Pursuant to the same, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide proceedings No.8564/Q3/2010, dated 11.05.2011, granted quarry lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 15 years under Rule 13 (1) and 15 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’). Thereafter, on 18.05.2011, a lease deed was executed and later the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/fifth respondent herein issued a work order vide proceedings No.9315/Q/2011, dated 16.05.2011, permitting the petitioner to commence the quarry operations for a period of 15 years commencing from 16.05.2011 to 15.05.2026.

3. While the things being so, the District Collector, Prakasam District/Third respondent herein vide proceedings in Rc.No.E1/780/2012 dated 03.04.2012, asked the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology not to permit any quarry operations in the above area on the ground that the Tahsildar issued No-Objection certificate without properly verifying the rights of the pattedars of the land and without obtaining the prior permission of the District Collector and on the ground of contemplation of full-fledged enquiry into the same. As a sequel to the same, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued a notice dated 11.04.2012 directing the petitioner to stop quarrying operations in the leased area until further orders.

4. In the above background, assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the above proceedings dated 03.04.2012 of the District Collector and the notice of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology dated 11.04.2012, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

5. This Court, on 24.04.2012, passed interim order, permitting the petitioner to conduct quarry and transport operations as per the terms of the lease while keeping it open for the authorities to conduct enquiry and to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the impugned proceedings.

6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 3 and 5 and reply is also filed by the writ petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent.

7. Heard Smt. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Mines and Geology for the respondents.

8. Submissions/contentions of Smt.N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner.

8.1 The impugned action on the part of the respondents 3 and 5 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India

8.2. The questioned action is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

8.3. The action impugned is not inconsonance with the orders of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries & Commerce (M.I.) Department, dated 28.05.1998. Since it is never the case of the respondents that the subject properties are Government lands, the action impugned is unauthorised and impermissible.

8.4. The impugned action is also violative of principles of n