Point of Law: Whether a case falls under Section 11(2) or Section 11(4), when once notification is issued, the earlier application will not get any priority over subsequent application inasmuch as all the applications shall be deemed to have been received on the same day and shall be considered simultaneously in terms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 11 of the MMDR Act.

ORDER :

The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring the order No.248/2011, dated 29.03.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in the statutory revision application No.02(32)/2008-RC.II filed by the 7th respondent challenging the proceedings in Memo No.7084/M.III(2)/2008-4, dated 07.08.2008 rejecting his mining lease application for manganese ore for an extent of 49.60 hectares in Sy.No.131 of Chinabantupalli Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’).

2. Petitioner’s case is thus:

(a) Petitioner made mining lease application dated 24.09.2004 to the 3rd respondent through the 6th respondent for grant of lease of Manganese Ore in an extent of Ac 44.60 cents in Sy.No.131 of Chinabantupalli Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The 6th respondent after obtaining classification and availability-cum-No Objection Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, inspected and surveyed the land in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner has given consent in writing for a reduced area of 17.00 hectares for grant of mining lease in his favour. Thereafter basing on the recommendation of respondent Nos.4 and 6, the 3rd respondent issued Memo No.7084/M.III(2)/2006-6, dated 07.08.2008 informing the petitioner that the Government in principle agreed to grant mining lease for manganese ore in an extent of 17.00 hectares in Sy.No.131 of Chinabantupalli Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of the petitioner for a period of 20 years subject to prior approval of the Government of India i.e., the 2nd respondent herein.

(b) Aggrieved by the above proceedings, the 7th respondent filed a statutory revision application dated 01.10.2008 under Rule-54 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 before the 1st respondent. Petitioner was made as a party in the said revision petition and the petitioner filed his counter before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after hearing both parties passed impugned final orders No.248/2011, dated 29.03.2011 and allowed the revision application by setting aside the order dated 07.08.2008 of the 3rd respondent. Challenging the said revisional order, the instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. The 6th respondent filed counter. While almost agreeing with the petitioner’s case, it is averred by the 6th respondent that the Manganese bearing areas were de-reserved under G.O.Ms.No.345, Industries and Commerce (Mines.I) Department, dated 27.08.1994 and ten years thereafter i.e., in the year 2004 mining lease application was filed and hence question of consideration of all the applications together as if they were received on the same day does not arise. Further, the application of the 7th respondent was already examined by the Department of Mines & Geology and negatived. On the other hand, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Merakamudidam has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the writ petitioner who was the first applicant over the subject area and the Gram Panchayat also passed resolution for grant of mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner. Added to above, the 7th respondent Company failed to submit any documentary evidence about their activities. Therefore, the lease application of the 7th respondent was rightly rejected. It is further stated that the area applied by the 7th respondent is completely overlapping with the area applied by the writ petitioner. Above all, the writ petitioner has been holding one mining lease for manganese at Sy.No.259/1, 260/2, 261/1 to 7 of Garbham Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District for the period from 13.03.2008 to 12.03.2028. Whereas the 7th respondent is holding 9 Mining Leases for Manganese at different places narrated in the counter. It is thus prayed to pass an appropriate orders.

4. The 7th respondent filed counter contending as follows:

(a) The 7th respondent is a company