ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is:-

1. The father of the petitioner had been granted a mining lease over an extent of Ac.21.85 in Sy.No.47 of Pedda Ekkaluru Village, Pedda Pappuru Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, for a period of 20 years, by way of G.O.Ms.No.573 dated 12.05.1977. A consequential lease deed was executed in September, 1977. Upon expiry of the initial lease, it was renewed for a further period of 20 years by way of G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 21.07.2000. During the pendency of this lease, the father of the petitioner died on 26.10.2013 and his mother was brought in as the successor lessee, by virtue of the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 24.11.2014 in proceedings No.94/M2/2000. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner also passed away on 05.12.2020. During her life time, the mother of the petitioner, having come to know that steps were being taken to grant the lease of this area to other persons, had given a representations dated 22.11.2018 and 20.02.2019 to respondents 2 to 4, opposing grant of mining lease to any other person. At that stage, a representation is said to have been given for renewal of the lease. The petitioners had, thereafter, sought to clear the arrears demanded by the 4th respondent by his demand notice No.94/M2/2003, dated 17.02.2020 to the tune of Rs.4,08,397/-. However, the 4th respondent refused to receive the arrears amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 01.12.2020 in the form of a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the lease should not be determined on 13 grounds raised therein. This show cause notice was not received initially by the petitioners and later, having come to know of the said show cause notice, representations were made. Subsequently, the 1st respondent determined the mining lease given in favour of the petitioners by way of G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 09.04.2021. At that stage, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 04.05.2021 had granted a quarry lease to the 5th respondent in relation to the quarry lease given to the petitioner. The petitioner also states that having come to know of the steps being taken for grant of quarry lease to the 5th respondent, a revision petition had been filed before the 1st respondent against the grant of such quarry lease. The mother of the petitioner is said to have given a formal renewal application in the proper format on

31.10.2020.

2. The 5th respondent is said to have been granted a quarry lease by proceedings of the 2nd respondent on 04.05.2021 and subsequently a lease deed was also executed in favour of the 5th respondent on 07.05.2021.

3. Aggrieved by the determination of the lease given in favour of the family of the petitioner, the grant of quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent and the execution of lease deed in favour of the 5th respondent, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the lease, which expired only in the year 2020. The non- renewal of lease is clearly not in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Further the application of the 5th respondent for grant of quarry lease, which had obviously been filed during the pendency of the subsisting lease in favour of the mother of the petitioner, is clearly not maintainable and no proceedings could have been initiated on the basis of such an application. The petitioner had also raised an issue in the writ petition, that one of the minerals for which the lease had been granted to the 5th respondent, is a major mineral and as such the minor Mineral Concession Rules would not apply to this case. However this contention has not been pressed in the course of arguments before this Court and as such the said contention is not being considered.

5. The 4th respondent contended that the lease of the petitioner had expired on 01.11.2017 itself as G.O.Ms.No.391, dated 21.07.2000, which exten