IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing a revision application must be condoned by the revisional authority if sufficient cause is shown, as prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the 1st respondent in the revision application filed by the 4th respondent dtd. 29/3/2023 allowing the revision application by dismissing the claim of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the outset, the impugned memo dtd. 29/3/2023 of the 1st respondent is contrary to the Rule 35 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and as the revision was filed by the 4th respondent with abnormal delay, the same was not condoned by showing the sufficient reason in the impugned revisional order and as such it is defective and not sustainable under law. Initially, the petitioner was given Letter of Intent in the matter of grant of quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent 3.000 Hectares in Sy.No.885 of Kanipakam Village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District by the 2nd respondent. The said Letter of Intent was extended first time in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dtd. 29/12/2020 and the similar extension was made by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dtd. 11/1/2022. The Form-"P" application submitted by the petitioner dtd. 20/1/2012 discloses at the Column of the name of the applicant as Sri A.M. Arunachalam represented by Jalakam Murali, Managing Director M/s. TAM Granites & Marbles Private Limited.

4. He further submits that the petitioner came out of the company in the year, 2014 and when the revision was filed against the grant of Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner there was an abnormal delay on the part of the 4th respondent, which was also brought to the notice of the revisional authority by way of defence by the petitioner stating that the impugned revision application was submitted after 29 months from the date of Letter of Intent, 18 months from the date of 1st extension and 7 months from the date of 2nd extension of the Letter of Intent, which is contrary to Rule 35 A of APMMC Rules as the revision should have been submitted by the aggrieved party within 3 months as per the Rules.

5. Though the said defence was recorded by the revisional authority in the impugned order dtd. 29/3/2023 there was no further discussion on that aspect and the revision applicant also did not show the sufficient cause for the above said delay and there is no specific finding to condone the delay of such filing of the revision upon satisfaction of the reasons mentioned by the revision applicant in the impugned order of the 1st respondent dtd. 29/3/2023. In the Form-"P" application of the 4th respondent herein also at column 7 they have mentioned that there is no delay in filing the revision by mentioning it as "yes".

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Karusala Nageswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2011 (6) ALD 31. and the relevant portion of the said order in W.P.No.12844 of 2009 and WPMP.No.16632 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3872 of 2009 dtd. 28/6/2011 is as under:-

6. 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 35-A 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.

9. As regards the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find merit therein. Rule 35-A of the Rules prescribes filing of revision within 90 days of passing of the order. Under proviso to Rule 35-C, if the revisi