ORDER :

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:

“……..declaring the order in letter No 20300/M.I(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in letter No.20300/M.1(2)/2016-1 dated 19.1.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent and pass…….”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the writ affidavit, submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.3.00cents in Sy.No.86 of Chebrolu Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and to that effect, the petitioner has pattadar passbook and title deed in his name. He submits that respondent No.4 issued Show-Cause-Notice dated 19.10.2012, for which, the petitioner preferred explanation on 08.11.2012 and without considering the same, the petitioner got issued demand notice on 19.12.2012, followed by reminder notice dated 30.03.2013 by the 4^th respondent.

4. He also submits that aggrieved by the said action of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner preferred revision application by invoking Section 35-A of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (in short ‘Rules, 1966’) before the 1^st respondent on 28.05.2013, the same was returned on 25.02.2014 and communicated to the petitioner by way of letter dated 09.07.2015 by the 4^th respondent.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner again re-submitted his revision on 03.09.2016, with a delay of 1148 days, which was rejected vide orders dated 19.01.2017 by the 1^st respondent on the sole ground of delay of 2 years 8 months and without assigning any reasons at all. Hence, the writ petition. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.9558 of 2016.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology submits that the petitioner is illegally doing mining operations on his land, as such, the respondent authorities, by following the prerequisite procedural steps, rightly issued demand notice. She further submits that the petitioner filed revision application, but with the abnormal delay, as such, the authorities, considering the ground realities, rejected the same.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused the material available on record.

8. Indisputably, even according to both the parties, the petitioner filed statutory revision by invoking the mechanism enunciated under Section 35-A of the Rules, 1966.

9. In this scenario, it is trite to extract the revisional powers circumscribed under Rule 35-A of the Rules, 1966, as under:-

“35-A. Revision:– The Government may either suo motu at any time or on an application made within ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the Director, [Joint Director], Deputy Director or Assistant Director under these rules for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit :

Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this rule unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.

1 [Explanation:– For purposes of this rule where a Deputy Director has failed to dispose of an application for the grant or renewal of a quarry lease within the period specified in respect thereof under these rules, the Deputy Director shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such lease on the date on which such period expires.]”

10. A plain reading of the above Rule crystal clears that the 2^nd respondent is empowered to examine and verify the legality and propriety of the orders impugne