V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) ). PURSUANT to notification dated 26-10-2000 issued by the director of mines and geology inviting applications for grant of quarrying lease of building stone, the petitioners submitted their applications on the same day in respect of land bearing sy. No. 39 of gollahalli village in Bangalore south taluk. By the impugned notification at Annexure-C , dated 22-12-2000 the quarrying lease was granted in favour of the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 12157 of 2001 (who will be referred to as such hereinafter ). Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed these writ petition complaining that their applications have not been considered properly along with the other applications as required under Rule 23 (2) (v) of the rules. ( 2 ) THE learned counsels who are appearing for the petitioners submit that the applications of the petitioners were in time but the competent authority did not give priority on the basis of first-come-first but 4th respondent has been granted the quarrying lease in contravention of Rule 23 of the Karnataka minor mineral concession rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' ). The counsel contended that the proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature, no reasons are assigned in respect of the unsuccessful applicants/petitioners and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the revisional authority. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in mohinder singh gill and another v the chief election commissioner, New Delhi and others, wherein it is stated that orders passed by the statutory authorities must be judged by reasons mentioned. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case no reasons are assigned and hence the grant of quarrying lease in favour of 4th respondent is bad in law. ( 3 ) MR. H. n. nagamohandas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued supporting the grant of quarrying lease in favour of his client. Referring to Rule 23 (2) of the rules, the counsel made submission, which will be dealt with in due course. The counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the original files and the impugned orders. Prima facie I am satisfied that the applications of the petitioners have been considered along with the application of 4th respondent. This is. The counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the original files and the impugned orders. Prima facie I am satisfied that the applications of the petitioners have been considered along with the application of 4th respondent. This is. also clear from the copy of report of the geologist produced along with the memo dated 29-5-2001, by the learned high court government pleader. In the very same report the reasons are also assigned. It is stated that the application of 4th respondent has been considered as he is an unemployed graduate and he intends to instal jelly crushing machine. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applications of the petitioners was not considered or no reasons are assigned for granting the quarrying lease in favour of the 4th respondent. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard are without any basis and contrary to the factual position. ( 5 ) PLACING reliance upon Rule 23 (2) (v) of the rules, Mr. D. l. n. rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 12989 of 2001 vehemently argued that the application submitted by his client was the earliest one and as per the above sub-rule his application should have been accepted. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion of Rule 23 of the rules and the same is as under. "rule 23. Priority. (1) xxx xxx. (2) if more than one application over the same area is received under Rule 21 on the same day, preference shall be given to the applicants in the following order. (i) xxx xxx xxx; (ii) xxx xxx xxx; (iii) xxx xxx xxx; (iv) xxx xxx xxx; (v) all other applications in order of receipt and date of application on first-come-first basis". insofar as these writ petitions are concerned, sub-clauses (i) to (iv) are not relevant as none of the petitioners claim priority under those Provisions. The case of all the petitioners fall under sub-clause (v) and hence the said provision alone is extracted above. ( 6 ) THE interpretation sought to be given by Sri d. l. n. rao cannot be accepted. In this regard, Mr. The case of all the petitioners fall under sub-clause (v) and hence the said provision alone is extracted above. ( 6 ) THE interpretation sought to be given by Sri d. l. n. rao cannot be accepted. In this regard, Mr. H. n. nagamohan das has rightly contended that if priority is given on first-come-first basis as provided under clause (v) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the rules, only the first application received on the first date prescribed will have to be accepted and there is no scope for receiving any more applications. In such an event the very purpose of giving preference or priority would be defeated as there will be no scope for consideration of the subsequent applicants. It is not the intent of the legislature to confine receipt of only one application, namely the first application, for the grant of quarrying lease. Therefore, clause (v) has to be liberally interpreted in such a manner that the other Provisions of the rules shall not become redundant. The opening words in sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the rules states "if more than one application over the same area is received". Even the opening words of sub-clause (v) of Rule 23 (2) begins with the words "all other applications". If priority contemplated under Rule 23 (2) is given under sub-clause (v) on "first-come-first basis", only first application is sufficient to grant the lease. In such an event, the opening words "more than one application" in sub-rule (2) and "all other applications" in sub-clause (v) thereof will lose their significance. Therefore, the interpretation of Mr. D. l. n. rao has to be rejected and the submission of Mr. nagamohan das deserves acceptance. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the grant of quarrying lease in favour of 4th respondent, revision petitions had been filed before the director of mines and geology. The claim of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12151 of 2001 was that he belongs to bhovi community and his application should have been considered under sub-rule (2) (i) of Rule 23 of the rules, which provides for giving priority to an applicant belonging to economically weaker Section of society who is a quarry operator by tradition and whose livelihood depends entirely on quarrying. With reference to this claim, the revisional authority found that the applicant has not produced any documents in proof of his claim, in the absence of such proof, the revisional authority has rightly held that his case also falls for consideration under sub-clause (v) of Rule 23 (2) of the rules. The revisional authority found that the applications of the petitioners have also been considered and on such consideration quarrying lease was granted in favour of 4th respondent. The revisional authority rejected the revision petitions confirming the grant of quarrying lease in favour of 4th respondent. There is no scope for interference as the petitioners were entitled only for consideration of their applications, which has already been done by the competent authority. ( 8 ) SINCE the quarrying lease is granted in favour of 4th respondent taking into consideration that he is unemployed graduate so that he can take self-employment instead of aspiring for a government job as has been done by majority of the unemployed graduates, it is not a fit case for interference. ( 9 ) WRIT petitions are accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .