K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a simple case and the principal point that arises for determination is also concluded, by a direct ruling of a division Bench of this Court. But, still thanks to the extremely technical, unhelpful and very determined objections of respondent No. 1, who happens to be the daughter of an Advocate practising at Muddebihal and a former member of the Legislative Assembly, the case, has been complicated, records of the case have grown out of all proportion, occupied more time than it was legitimately entitled to, consequently delaying the disposal of the case itself. More than all this, the attitude of respondent No. 1 has caused anxiety and anguish to one and all and more so to one of my esteemed brother Judge, who having heard the case in full and given his best of consideration, did not complete his dictation and then transferred the same to be placed before another Judge. As a result of the same, by a special order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this case was posted before me for hearing and that is how I heard this case over again. With this rilef prejace, it is now necersary to notice the facts oi the case, in the first instance. ( 2 ) LAND bearing Sy. No. 169 moasuring 6 acros 37 glo-tas of Minajigi village, Muddebma lalak, bijapur District is a Government land and has been classiued as 'galrana' laud in the revenue records. Some time in 1976 the said land was handed over by the revenue department to the forest Department for undertaking afforestation. Before or after the transfer of the said landi to the control of the Forest Department, a declaration uder the karnataka Forest Act, 1963 or under the karnataka I and revenue Act 1961 was not issued declaring the said Land as a reserved Forest area. On 2. 8. 1978 the forest Dipartment surrendered the said land to the Revenue Department on the ground that the same was unsuitable for afforestation, but, till then the land was under the physical control of the Forest Department. ( 3 ) ON 10. 6. On 2. 8. 1978 the forest Dipartment surrendered the said land to the Revenue Department on the ground that the same was unsuitable for afforestation, but, till then the land was under the physical control of the Forest Department. ( 3 ) ON 10. 6. 1978, the petitioner made an application before the Divisional forest Officer, Bagalkote Division pagalkote (hereinafter referred to as the DFO) for grant of a temporary quarrying permit on the aforesaid land under Rule 34 of the Karntaka Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), who by his order dt. 4. 8. 78 granted the same for a period of 90 days. Before the expiry of the said temporary permit, the petitioner on 14. 7. 1978 made an application belore the DFO for the grant of a regular quarrying lease on the land with the prescribed fee, which was referred by him to the Range Forest Officer, muddebihal (hereinafter referred to as the RFO) for enquiry and report, who on inquiry recommended for its grant. On 22. 7. 1978 the DFO recommended to the Conservator of forest, belgaum Cricle, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as tho Conservator) for the giant of 2 acres of land to petitioner. ( 4 ) WHILE the application made by the petitioner was pending consideration before the Forest department, respondent No. 1 made an application under the Rules on 24-7-1978 before the Deputy Director of Plans, Department of Mines and Geology, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy director) for grant of quarrying lease on the said land, inter alia claiming that she was an unemployed graduate and was keen on starting an industry of lime business. As in such cases, the Deputy Director referred that application to the Geologist, Lesser Minerals, gulbarga for enquiry and report, who on inquiry submitted his report, on 4. 8. 1978 in the pro-forma form. Column No. 2 of the proforma form and the reply of the Geologist read thus :-"whether the area applied for is a govt. land/gairan or Grazing land/- Forest Area forest Land or land under private holdings. Against column No. 17 the officer reiterated that the land was a Forest land by expressing thus :- "the area is under Forest. . . land/gairan or Grazing land/- Forest Area forest Land or land under private holdings. Against column No. 17 the officer reiterated that the land was a Forest land by expressing thus :- "the area is under Forest. . . " ( 5 ) EVIDENTLY on the basis of the report of the Geologist and the contrary assertions made by respondent No. 1 and her father, on 27. 7. 1978 the Deputy director wrote a letter to the Conservator which reads thus:"sub :- Application dated 24 7 78 for grant of quarry lease in Sy No. 16s of Minjajige village Mnddebihal taluk, Bijapur Dist. With reference to the above, Mss jayashree. D/o Sri M. M. Sajjan Adcate and Ex. M. L. A. of Muddebihal has applied for grant of quarry lease in Sy. 169 of Minajige village, Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur District on 24. 7. 1978 on the ground that she is an unemployed post graduate. But. it is learnt that Sy. Nos. 96, 98 and 169 of Minajige village are taken up by your department for afforestation and that no afforestation work has been started in these lands till to-day. Therefore, the purpose for which the lands have been taken has not been fulfilled. In the meanwhile it is reported that some persons have applied to your department for grant of quarry lease in the above Sy. numbers. In this connection, I would like to inform that the land taken for a specific purpose cannot be used for different purpose. Under the above circumstances, i would like to know the persons and the date of filing of their applications for grant of lease. If it is so, this department may also be consulted in this regard. "not unnaturally the above letter of the Deputy Director evoked a strong reply on 2. 8. 1978 from the Conservator, which reads thus: :-"sub: Application dated 24. 7. 1978 for grant of quarry lease in Sy. 169 of Minajigi village, Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur Dist. Ref: Your letter No. 12090 /dt. 27. 7. 78. At the outset it is vexatious to read the unhappy tone of unwarranted writing bereft of normal and formal decorum and politeness in addressing sister departments. I fail to know the rhyme and reason for the biassed and uncalled for critical writing against this department without the background or antecedental knowledge of the matter about which this letter is written. At the outset it is vexatious to read the unhappy tone of unwarranted writing bereft of normal and formal decorum and politeness in addressing sister departments. I fail to know the rhyme and reason for the biassed and uncalled for critical writing against this department without the background or antecedental knowledge of the matter about which this letter is written. The department is quite conscious as to how and for what purpose the survey numbers in question transferred to this department by the Revenue Department are to be made use of. Any counselling in this regard is out of place. However, you are informed that sri L. G. Hiremath of Minajigi and sri A. S. Biradar of Minajigi had applied for a quarrying lease in the said survey number. They have been suitably endorsed. "on the same day, the Conservator also wrote another letter to the DFO and the same reads thus:-"sub: Issue of quarrying lease to sri L. G. Hiremath and Sri A. S. Biradar. Ref: Your letter No. B2 FOI mtl BGK 2 78-79 dated 28-7-1978. If the survey No. 169 of Minajigi village vested in revenue department is not suitable for afforestation and pasture development work, it may be surrendered back to the revenue department. Under the circumstances the request for grant of the quarry lease made by Sri L. G. Hiremath and Sri A. S. Biradar cannot be processed in this department. Both the applicants may please be given endorsement suitably. The case papers pages 31 to 48 are returned herewith. "the above correspondence, without a shadow of doubt, establishes the pendency of the application of the petitioner for the same land and for the same purpose before the Forest department as on the very day respondent no. 1 made her application before the deputy Director. But, unfortunately the Deputy Director without waiting for the receipt of the application made by the petitioner or requesting the forest authorities to send that application to him to consider the same along with the later and rival application made by respondent No. 1, almost mechanically granted the latter's application on 9-8-1978, in pursuance of which a lease deed has been executed between respondent No. 1 and Government on 23-8-1978. ( 6 ) ON 1-9-1978 the petitioner filed a revision petition under Rule 61of the rules before the Director of Mines and geology, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Director) challenging the lease granted to respondent No 1 So far as the said revision petition itself, there were various proceedings before this Court between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, a detailed partation of all of them is not very necessary and the same is, therefore not noticed after hearing both sides, the Director by his order dated 63/6/1981 (Annexure-B) has dismissed the said revision petition, the validity of wihch as challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, on diverse grounds. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has asserted that he made an application for quarrying lease on 14-7-1978 before the DFO for the same land and for the same purpose for which the authorities of the mining Department have granted a lease to respordent No. 1 on her later application Not unnaturally he has asserted that the land was a Forest land and, therefore, the officers of the forest Department were competent to grant the lease and not the officers of the Mines Department before whom respondent No. 1 made her application. Alternately he has contended that the earlier application made by him and the later one made by respondent No. 1 should have been at least considered together and a decision taken on an examination of the relative merits of the applications. ( 8 ) IN her return filed or. 3-12-1981, verified by her father, respondent No. 1 has denied the assertion of the petitioner that he made an application on 14-7-1978 for a quairying lease before the DFO. In conformity with her application before the Mines Department, she has contended that the application made before the DFO was not maintainable. ( 9 ) AS before the authorities, respondent No 1 has asserted that the land was under the control of the revenue Department for which reason the authorities of the Mines Department were competent to grant the quarrying lease. A fortiori, respondent No. 1 has urged that the lease granted in her favour affirmed in revision is valid and legal. ( 10 ) IN any number of applications filed as also in the unduly lengthy objections filed to a simple memo filed by the learned Government Advocate on 3-9-1982. A fortiori, respondent No. 1 has urged that the lease granted in her favour affirmed in revision is valid and legal. ( 10 ) IN any number of applications filed as also in the unduly lengthy objections filed to a simple memo filed by the learned Government Advocate on 3-9-1982. respondent No. 1 has made reckless, wild and wholly unjustified allegations against the officers of the forest Department and even against sri L. Sreenivasa Reddy, learned Government Advocate who was conducting the case on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. ( 11 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 5 have produced their records before Court. ( 12 ) SRI H. B. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, that the application made bv his client for lease before the DFO, should have been considered and decided by the deputy Director along with the later application made by respondent No. 1 for the same land and for the same purpose. In support of his contention sri Datar strongly relied on an unreported Division Bench ruling of this court in B. Hanumantharaju v. The state of Karnataka (1) that affirmed a decision rendered by me in B. Udaya ravi v. The State of Karnataka (2 ). ( 13 ) SRI G. B. Raikar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in justifying the grant made to his client urged, (i) that the land was a revenue land; (ii) that the petitioner had made no application for lease; (iii) the application made before the DFO was not maintainable; and (iv) that the application made by the petitioner was not for the same mineral for which his client made her application and had been granted ( 14 ) SRI Reddy without taking sides placed the case of respondents 2 to 5 with fairness. ( 15 ) BEFORE examining the merits of the contritions urged for the petitioner, it is appropriate to decide on thei nature of the land and whether the petitioner had at all made his application for grant of lease and its nature vis-a^vis the application made by respondent no. 1. ( 16 ) SY. No. 109 of Minajigi village measuring 6 acres 37 guntas classified as a Gairan land is a Government- land, admitted by all parties, is also borne out by the certified extracts produced before this Court. 1. ( 16 ) SY. No. 109 of Minajigi village measuring 6 acres 37 guntas classified as a Gairan land is a Government- land, admitted by all parties, is also borne out by the certified extracts produced before this Court. Prior to june, 1976 the land was under the control of the Revenue Department and was transferred to the Forest Department in about June 1976 for afforestation purposes, but the same being unsuitable for that purpose was surrendered to the Revenue Department on or after 28. 1979 and that between June 76 to 2. 8. 78, no notification declaring the land as a reserved forest area under section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Act, was issued, are not disputed by the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4. ( 17 ) CHAPTER-II of the Forest Act deals with reserved forest land. S. 3 of the said Act, empowers the State government to constitute any Government land as a reserved forest area. Section 4 of the said Act requires a notification to be issued in the official gazette declaring any Government land as a reserved forest land. Even though the land was under the physical control of the Forest Department from june, 1976 to August, 1978, the State government had not issued any order under Section 3 of the Forest Act, and had not issued a notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, declaring the land as a reserved forest land. In the absence of an order by the State Government under Sec. 3 of the Act and notification under Section 4 of the Act in the official gazette, the legal position was that the land continued to be under the control of the revenue department governed iby the provisions of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 196'4) (hereinafter referred to as the lr Act ). From this it follows that the land, though the same was under the physical control of the Forest Department from June, 1976 to August, 1978, it had not lost the character of a land regulated by the LR Act, and the Revenue Department had not lost its legal control over the same. From this it follows that the land, though the same was under the physical control of the Forest Department from June, 1976 to August, 1978, it had not lost the character of a land regulated by the LR Act, and the Revenue Department had not lost its legal control over the same. ( 18 ) AS long as the land was under the legal control of the Revenue Department, the Mines Department was competent to grant the application made by respondent No. 1 and no others. ( 19 ) AN application made by the petitioner before the DFO dated 13. 7. 1978 accompanied by a treasury challan for a sum of Rs. 500/- paid on 14. 7. 1978 and presented on 14. 7. 1978 before the dfo, is found in the records of the office of the DEO. A cursory or a careful examination of that application and its enclosures establishes that, that application had been made by the petitioner on 14. 7. 78. The several notings and the investigation reports of the officers of the Forest Department establish that that application had been made by the petitioner on 14. 7. 78. In the correspondence that ensued between the forest authorities and the Mining authorities, there is a clear reference to the said application made by the petitioner. In the earlier proceedings before this Court, respondent No. 1 had not even denied the assertion of the petitioner that he had made an application for lease on 14-7-1978. All these circumstances, without a shadow of doubt establish that the petitioner had made an applicetion on 14-7- 1978 before the DFO. The failure of the petitioner to specifically allude to his application in his revision petition before the Director is not such a ground on which this Court can uphold the assertion of respondent No. 1. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the belated and reckless plea of respondent no. 1 that the petitioner had not made an application for the grant of quarrying lease before the dfo in Sy. No. 169 of Minajigi village. ( 20 ) COLUMN No. 5 of the appliration and the reply written by the petitioner thereto reads thus :- "v. Minor Mineral which the applicant intends to quarry. 100 Barras of building stones i. e. Pharashi stones. " the word 'pharashi' appears to be a local term. No. 169 of Minajigi village. ( 20 ) COLUMN No. 5 of the appliration and the reply written by the petitioner thereto reads thus :- "v. Minor Mineral which the applicant intends to quarry. 100 Barras of building stones i. e. Pharashi stones. " the word 'pharashi' appears to be a local term. The word 'pharashi' is generally employed to signify 'shahabad stones' that are generally used for building purposes. In her application against column No. (v) respondent no. 1 has stated that she proposes to quarry shahabad stones in the land. ( 21 ) AN examination of the reports of the officers of the Forest and mining Departments disclose that the land contains only Shahabad stone and not any other kind of mineral. Looking at the substance of the applications made, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner had made an application for a different mineral other than the one sought by respondent No. 1. In this view, I find it difficult to hphold the contention of Sri Raikar that the application made by the petitioner for the very same land, was for a different mineral. ( 22 ) AS the land was not a reserved forest land the Conservator or the DFO were not competent to grant the same. But, on this conclusion it is not proper to hold that the petitioner was in error in filing his application before the DFO or the DFO entertaining the same, investigating and then submitting the same to the Conservator for disposal. ( 23 ) AS on the relevant date the petitioner made his application, the land was under the physical control of the forest Department though its legal control vested with the Revenue Department. Before that, an application made by the petitioner for a temporary quarrying permit under Rule 34 of the rules had been entertained and granted by the Forest Department. On these peculiar facts and circumstances it would not be proper to hold that the petitioner was not. justified in presenting his application before the DFO, the dfo entertaining and refusing the same bona fide believing that the land was a reserved iorest land. Unfortunately, these facts cannot empower the forest Department authorities to grant the application made by the petitioner. As to how the matter should have been regulated in such a situation is conclndcd by the ruling of this Court in Udaya ravi's case. Unfortunately, these facts cannot empower the forest Department authorities to grant the application made by the petitioner. As to how the matter should have been regulated in such a situation is conclndcd by the ruling of this Court in Udaya ravi's case. ( 24 ) IN Udaya Ravi's case the facts were these: A certain piece of land situated in Kengal village of Sompura hobli, Bangalore District had been declared as a reserved area as early as on 6-2-35 underr the Forest law of the erstwhile princely State of Mysore. But, the revenue records did not disclose that the said land was a reserved forest area. On that assumption the mines Department granted a lease to udaya Ravi on a certain area of that land. One B. Hanumantharaju made an application for the same area and obtained a lease from the Forest Department. In examining the challenge of Udaya Ravi to the lease granted to hanumantharaju and the counter challenge of Hanumantharaju and the nature of the reliefs to be granted to the parties, I expressed thus:-"11. Whenever any land is included or declared as a reserved forest area, in the absence of a provision to the contrary in any other enactment, the authorities that are competent to deal with bentch lands in any matter are only the authorities of the Forest department of Government. Secondly clause (c) of Rule 2 of the karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Rules) declares the chief Conservator of Forests as the controlling officer in case of lands in charge of the Forest Department. In clear terms this definition reserves the power to deal with such lands on the officers of the Forest Department only. Lastly, to remove any ambiguity in the matter, Government oi karnataka in its Notification No. CI 189 EMM 75 dated 5-7-1976 (Exhibit- c in W. P. No. 17639 of 1979) has conferred power on the various officers of the Forest department to grant leases in reserve forest areas under the 1969 Rules also. So far as reserve forest areas lying in Bangalore, Kolar and ,tumkur Districts, the said notification has empowered the C. F. to grant leases under the 1969 Rules. From these, it is clear that the one and the only authority that was competent to entertain and grant an application for quarry lease in Sy. So far as reserve forest areas lying in Bangalore, Kolar and ,tumkur Districts, the said notification has empowered the C. F. to grant leases under the 1969 Rules. From these, it is clear that the one and the only authority that was competent to entertain and grant an application for quarry lease in Sy. No. 114 of Kengal Village-was only the C. F. and not the Deputy Director or any other officer of the Department of Mines and Geology and the lease granted to the petitioner by the Deputy Director was wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. In this view, the lease granted to the petitioner is liable to be quashed. ""12. In W. P. No. 16/77 of 1979 the petitioner has not challenged the lease granted to respondent No. 5 by the C. F. Sri Janardhan, therefore contended that there was no justification to cancel the lease granted by the competent authority to respondent No. 5. " "13. As seen earlier, the petitioner had filed his application before the deputy Director, bona fide believing that that authority was competent to entertain his application and grant the lease. Unfortunately, the Deputy director to whom the petitioner made his application, also entertained that application and granted him a case though he was not competent to entertain the application and grant him a lease. By allowing the lease granted to respondent No. 5, the claim of the petitioner for similar relief by the competent authority cannot be considered. In my opinion the mistake committed by the petitioner and more FO by the Deputy director cannot be a ground to defeat the claim made by the petitioner in its entirety. In these circumstances, it is necessary to quash the lease granted to respondent No. 5 (Exhibit G W. P. No. 37639 of 1979) and direct the CF to dispose of the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 5 together in accordance with law. " on the above conclu fons, I cancelled the lease granted to both the. parties and directted the competent Forest officer to consider and dispose of the applications made by Udaya Ravi and hanurnantharaju together. " ( 25 ) ON an appeal filed by Hanumantharaju against the said order contending that there was no justification to cancel the lease granted to him that had not, been challenged by Udaya Ravi, a division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrashekhar. " ( 25 ) ON an appeal filed by Hanumantharaju against the said order contending that there was no justification to cancel the lease granted to him that had not, been challenged by Udaya Ravi, a division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrashekhar. CJ and Bopanna, j. expressing thus, dismissed the said appeal:"5. In this appeal, Sri M. R. Janardhana, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing the lease granted in favour of the appellant by the Conservaton of Forests in the absence of a prayer in Writ Petition No. 16177 of 1979 for quashing the grant of such leave the absence of a prayer for quashing the lease granted in favvour of the present appellant did not affect the jurisdiction of the learned single judge to quash such lease if it was necessary to do so in the ends of justice. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that Udaya ravi's application for the lease was earlier than the application of the appellant. Udaya Ravi could not have been aware of the fact that the area of the mining lease had been transferred to the Forest Department. His application to the Deputy director of Mines and Ocoloay for grant of lease, was under a bona fide belief that that authority who ordinarily grants mining leases, namely the Deputy Director of Mines and geology, had the jurisdiction over that area also to grant the mining lease. In our opinion,, the learned single Judge was justified in quashing the lease granted in favour of the appellant so that the rival applications of the appellant and Udaya ravi may be considered together by the Conservator of Forests. " ( 26 ) FROM the above rulings two principles clearly emerge and they are. (i) applications made for one and the same land and for one and the same purpose, though made before different authorities one of which may even be incompetent to entertain an applicacation, have to be considered together and decided on merits by the authority that is competent to deal with such applications; (ii) In order to enable the competent authority to decide the applications together, a grant made by the competent or incompetent authority as the case may be has necessarily to be set aside and the competent authority directed to dispose of the applications together. ( 27 ) UNDER various other enactments like the nams Abolition Act, Land reforms Act, Cinemas Regulation Act, motor Vehicles Act and others, this court has consistently taken the view that rival applications should be considered together as otherwise the same would result in failure of justice to the person whose application is not considered. ( 28 ) LET me now examine whether the principles enunciated in Udaya ravi's case applies to the facts and the question that arises for determination in this case. ( 29 ) ON 14-7-1978 the petitioner had made an application before the DFO for the grant of quarrying lease in Sy. No. 169 of Minajigi village who was incompetent to entertain that application. But, a later application made by respondent No. 1 has been disposed of by the Deputy Director without considering the same along with the earlier application of the petitioner made before the DFO, which fact also had been appraised and was known to him, in my view the facts and the question that arises for determination in this case are governed by the principles enunciated in Udaya Ravi's case. From this it follows that the order made by the Deputy Director granting a lease to respondent No. 1 is illegal and unjust and cannot be allowed to stand. ( 30 ) UNFORTUNATELY, before the Director, the petitioner instead of highlighting the above aspects of the matter, unnecessarily highlighted the earlier temporary permit granted to him. If the above facts and the decision of this court had been brought to his notice, i have no doubt, the Director would have remedied the illegality committed by the Deputy Director Any failure by the petitioner to highlight the same or the failure of the revisional authority to grapple the said and undo the injustice occasioned cannot be a ground for this Court to refuse relief to the petitioner. In this view the orders made by the Director and the Deputy director which suffer from manifest illegalities are liable to be quashed and and appropriate directions issued for the proper disposal of the two applications by the Deputy Director. ( 31 ) IN the normal circumstances this is a fit case in which this Court should direct the parties to bear their own costs. But there are certain extraordinary circumstances that justify me to grant exemplary costs to be paid by respondent No. 1. ( 31 ) IN the normal circumstances this is a fit case in which this Court should direct the parties to bear their own costs. But there are certain extraordinary circumstances that justify me to grant exemplary costs to be paid by respondent No. 1. ( 32 ) IN the preface itself I have indicated as to how respondent No. 1 has sought to defeat and in any event unduly delay the just claim of the petitioner. At every stage respondent No. 1 made a very determined effort to delay disposal of this simple case, by raising all sorts of frivolous objections. Apart from this respondent No. 1 has indulged in wholly unjustified attacks against an Hon'ble Judge of this Court and even the learned Government Advocate that had to conduct the case for respondents 2 to 4. A case that should have normally occupied not were than 1/2 an hour, for its disposal must have occupied at least hundred times more than that time because of the obstructionist tactics adopted by respon- der No. 1. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court should direct respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as exemplary costs to the petitioner. ( 33 ) IN the light of my above discussion I make the following orders and directions. (a) I quash the order No. 311! lms/rvn 78. 2120-23 dated 6/3. 6. 81 of the Director of Mines and Geology bangalore and the order No. 155/dd lms/70. 13163-7 dated 9. 8. 78 of the deputy Director of Mines and Geology,, Bangalore. (b) I direct the Divisional Forest officer Bagalkot Division Bagalkot - respondent No. 5 to forthwith forward the application made by the petitioner on 14. 7. 78 to the Deputy director of Plans- respondent No. 3 for disposal. (c) I direct respondent No. 3 to consider the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 together,, but treating the application made by the former as if made before him on 14. 7. 78 for grant of one and the same mineral found in Sy. 7. 78 to the Deputy director of Plans- respondent No. 3 for disposal. (c) I direct respondent No. 3 to consider the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 together,, but treating the application made by the former as if made before him on 14. 7. 78 for grant of one and the same mineral found in Sy. No. 169 of Minajigi village and dispose of them in accordance with law and and in the light of the observations made in this order, without in any way being influenced by the earlier grant made by him in favour of the latter with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and in any event within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the application of the petitioner from respondent No 5 ( 34 ) RULE issued is made absolute with costs payable by respondent No. 1 Advocate's fee Rs. 1000/- ( 35 ) LET copies of this order be Communicated to respondents 2 to 5 within 10 days from this day. --- *** --- .