GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) AS similar questions of fact and law arise in these three writ petitions, they are considered and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN all these cases, the petitioners specifically seek a quarry lease in respect of different extents of lands in Survey Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/3 of R. L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District. ( 3 ) THE minerals in respect of which quarry lease is sought is Black Granite" of a category commercially known as Galaxy, which now has a lucrative market both abroad and in India. The individual facts in these writ petitions may be set out briefly as under : w. P. No. 20609 of 2000 : ( 4 ) THE petitioner seeks restoration of the mining lease granted to him by the lease deed dated 18-6-1990 for a period of 5 years from the date of restoration, in respect of Ac. 1. 98 cts in Sy. No. 55/3c of R. L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District. ( 5 ) ON 24-3-1990 the petitioner was granted permission by the 3rd respondent for removing boulder stones in the area of Ac. 1. 98 cts. Thereupon the petitioner applied for a mining lease in respect of the said area. The Director of Mines and Geology by an order dated 14-5-90 granted quarry lease of black granite over the area and subject to certain conditions imposed by the 3rd respondent. Consequently the 2nd respondent granted lease by proceedings dated 5-6-90 for a period of 5 years. A lease deed dated 18-6-90 was executed. Thereafter the 3rd respondent cancelled the permission earlier granted without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Challenging the same writ petition 6411/91 was filed. This writ petition was allowed on 22. 4192 on the ground that the cancellation was without notice and opportunity. ( 6 ) THE 3rd respondent thereupon issued a show cause notice dated 20-6-92 proposing cancellation of the permission granted on 24-3-90 for the various reasons stated therein including that the entire area of land including the land granted to the petitioner is required for the farm operations and mining activity would be detrimental to the live stock. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 11-7-92. The 3rd respondent cancelled the permission granted by the order dated 27-9-92. Consequently the 2nd respondent cancelled the mining lease by the order dated. 29-9-92. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 11-7-92. The 3rd respondent cancelled the permission granted by the order dated 27-9-92. Consequently the 2nd respondent cancelled the mining lease by the order dated. 29-9-92. Thereafter respondents 3 and 4 made the entire area of about Ac. 60 in Sy. Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/5 available for grant of mining lease and the 5th respondent purchased the said land and obtained mining lease for the entire area, vide proceedings dated 5-8-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent. ( 7 ) CONTENDING that the land in respect of which lease was granted to the petitioner in 1990 was cancelled only on account of the fact that the land was required for the purposes of sheep breeding farm and that as the land has now been decided to be put to mining use, the earlier reason for cancellation of the petitioner s lease no longer subsisting, it is entitled to restoration of the lease on the application of the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief set out. ( 8 ) THE petitioner places reliance on Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai v. Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai AIR 1986 SC 1912 in respect of the relief sought. The law declared in the said judgment has no relevance to the facts of the petitioner s case. In Dahyabai s case the appellant defendant entered into an agreement with the respondent-plaintiff to sell a property to the respondents. At the time of agreement the appellant had an imperfect title which disabled him from effectuating the sale. Subsequently on operation of the Sourashtra Land Reforms Act 1951, the appellant came to be recognised as an occupant under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1898, and was granted an occupancy certificate. After due permission granted by the Revenue Authorities, the land was converted from agricultural land to village site, thus capable of being put to non-agricultural use. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court while rejecting the contention of the appellant that the contract between the parties was a contingent contract held that in the light of the events subsequent to the agreement between the parties, the property become transferable subject to the express covenant on the part of the apellant to do all things necessary to give effect to the agreement. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Gujarat High Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance was affirmed. ( 9 ) THE petitioner is however seen to have no subsisting lease. The lease of the petitioner stood conclusively determined by the order dated 29-9-92 of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, with the cancellation of lease the earlier application of the petitioner dated 6-4-90 for grant of quarry lease of black granite no longer subsists. In the circumstances the relief sought by the petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition is without merits. W. P. No. 25959 of 2000 : ( 10 ) IN substance the petitioner seeks ano objection certificate from the respondents 1 to 5 to facilitate grant of quarry lease of black granite in an extent of Ac. 30 in Sy. Nos. 55/3c, 55/3a of R. L. Puram village and also seeks invalidation of the quarry lease granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent by proceedings dated 23-5-2000 and for a consequential grant of quarry lease to himself in an extent of Ac. 30. ( 11 ) THE petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease for mineral black granite over an extent of Ac. 20 in Sy. No. 55/3c and Ac. 10 in Sy. No. 55/3a on 8-1-1991. On the application an endorsement was made by the 3rd respondent informing the petitioner that its application was deemed to have been rejected. Against the endorsement in respect of application for Ac. 10 in Sy. No. 55/3a, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government, which was allowed by the order dated 10-7-91 directing the Deputy Director, Guntur to pass orders on the petitioner s quarry lease application on merits. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that as the land belongs to the Animal Husbandry Department his application for quarry lease would be considered only on the petitioner obtaining the no objection certificate from the said Department. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation to the Animal Husbandry Department and in that application also offered an alternative site to the Animal husbandry Department duly offering to take the entire extent of Ac. 180. The petitioner learnt that another application of M/s. Hampi Enterprises Ltd. (writ petitioner in W. P. 20609/2000) for no objection certificate was favourably considered by the Animal Husbandry Department and a certificate granted on 24-3-90. 180. The petitioner learnt that another application of M/s. Hampi Enterprises Ltd. (writ petitioner in W. P. 20609/2000) for no objection certificate was favourably considered by the Animal Husbandry Department and a certificate granted on 24-3-90. In the circumstances the petitioner sought a no objection certificate as was granted to M/s. Hampi Enterprises Ltd. The 5th respondent not having granted the petitioner s request, writ petition 11367/94 was instituted for an appropriate direction to the 5th respondent. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 3. 10. 94 directing the respondents therein including the 5th respondent herein, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by the end of October 1994 in the light of similar orders passed in favour of M/s. Hampi Enterprises Ltd. The petitioner also filed W. P. 19701/94 in respect of the other extent applied viz. Ac. 20 in Sy. No. 55/3c. Following the earlier judgment, this writ petition was also disposed of by orders dated 4-11-94 directing the disposal of the petitioner s application by the end of November, 1994. The petitioner s complaint is that his applications have not been disposed of till date despite the directions of this Court above. ( 12 ) IN G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department dt. 22-2-1999 the State Government accorded permission for handing over of Ac. 268. 70 cts. , in the cattle breeding farm, Ramatheertham to the 7th respondent herein for the purpose of exploration on terms of transfer to be determined by the Revenue Department. The G. O. also contains other provisions such as that the 7th respondent herein should compensate the Endowments Department for its lands in an extent of Ac. 200 which were made over to the Animal Husbandry Department for the purpose of shifting of the cattle breeding farm Ramatheer-tham. The petitioner contends on the above facts that as its application for grant of quarry lease is pending since 1991, in respect of Ac. 30 in the two Survey Nos. the action of the respondents in transferring the land in favour of the 7th respondent is arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that while it has no objection to transfer of the lands, the respondents should have set apart Ac. 30 for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner in the light of its earlier application. the action of the respondents in transferring the land in favour of the 7th respondent is arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that while it has no objection to transfer of the lands, the respondents should have set apart Ac. 30 for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner in the light of its earlier application. The petitioner states that the 7th respondent filed an application for grant of quarry lease in an extent of Ac. 18. 90 cts, in Sy. No. 55/3a of R. L. Puram village on 9-7-1991 later to the petitioner s application for Ac. 10 in the same Sy. No. on 8-1-1991. Despite the 7th respondent s application being later in point of time, the petitioner complains, the 7th respondent has been granted prospecting licence for two years on the basis of G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999, on 23-5-2000. It is also contended that even in respect of Sy. No. 55/3c while the 7th respondent s application for quarry lease was on 11-11-94, the petitioner application for an extent of Ac. 20 in the same Survey No. was earlier, on 8-1-91. ( 13 ) THE petitioner also complains that after issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999 the 7th respondent issued notification inviting sealed tenders for auction for prospecting licence and quarry of Galaxy granite in Block V in Sy. No. 53/3a in an extent of Ac. 18. 90 cts. In Block VI and VII in an extent of Ac. 30. 56 and AC. 30. 91 cts, in respect of areas for which the petitioner had not applied in August 2000. The area in which the petitioner had earlier applied for quarry lease is not included in the tender notification. ( 14 ) ON the above factual statement the petitioner seeks relief in the writ petition. ( 15 ) AS on date the Animal Husbandry Department has no title to the land in Sy. No. 55/3, 55/3a and 55/3c of R. L. Puram village. The Animal Husbandry Department has been granted an alternative site belonging to Endowments Department in lieu of its land. The land in the above three Survey Nos, in R. L. Puram village now belongs to the 7th respondent in the light of the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 55/3, 55/3a and 55/3c of R. L. Puram village. The Animal Husbandry Department has been granted an alternative site belonging to Endowments Department in lieu of its land. The land in the above three Survey Nos, in R. L. Puram village now belongs to the 7th respondent in the light of the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999. In the light of these subsequent developments the Animal Husbandry Department is incapable of granting a no objection certificate" to the petitioner in respect of land in the above three Survey Numbers. The petitioner has not challenged the orders in G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry Fisheries (AH. III) Department dt. 22-2-1999. ( 16 ) IN the above circumstances, the specific relief sought - a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not granting a no objection certificate " to facilitate grant of quarry lease to the petitioner for the mineral black granite over an extent of Ac. 30 in Sy. Nos. 55/3c and 55/3a in R. L. Puram village and for a consequntial direction to grant quarry lease to it, is seen to be misconceived. In view of the fact that the lands now vest with in 7th respondent, respondents 1 to 5 are not empowered to grant a no objection certificate" to the petitioner to enable it to obtain a qarry lease and if the 7th respondent intends to itself engage in the prospecting and qarrying of the minerals, may be by way of joint venture with an individual or private agency, the petitioner is seen to have no manner of entitlement to seek quarry lease in its favour. The writ petition is without merits. W. P. NO1190 of 2001: ( 17 ) THE 3rd respondent Corporation issued a notification for bids dated 4-1-2000 for tender cum auction for prospecting licences and quarrying of galaxy granite in joint venture with itself, stipulating certain pre-qualification for submission of bids. The petitioner challenges the said notification insofar as it relates to an extent of Ac. 68. 86 cts. in Sy. No. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. I. Puram village. ( 18 ) ON 19-7-91 the petitioner-company applied for grant of quarry lease in an extent of Ac. 60. 86 cts, in Sy. Nos. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. L. Puram village. 68. 86 cts. in Sy. No. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. I. Puram village. ( 18 ) ON 19-7-91 the petitioner-company applied for grant of quarry lease in an extent of Ac. 60. 86 cts, in Sy. Nos. 55/3, 55/3c and 55/3a of R. L. Puram village. Later the 3rd respondent made a similar application on 11-11-94. No orders were passed on petitioner s application and in accordance with the provisions of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for shortthe Rules ) the petitioner s application is deemed to have been rejected. Against the deemed rejection the petitioner preferred a revision to the State Government. Its revision was allowed on 28-11-91 remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for disposal of the application on merits. Thereafter the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology rejected the application on the ground that the land in question belongs to the Animal Husbandry Department in which Ramatheertham cattle breeding farm has been established and the land was not available for extracting minor minerals. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred another revision. This was disposed of by the State Government on 30-10-99 inter alia directing that in the event of the 3rd respondent Corporation considering establishment of units in granite industry in the joint venture, the applicant may also be given an opportunity to participate in the joint venture. ( 19 ) THE 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 7-6-2000 proposing rejection of the quarry lease application of the petitioner dated 19-7-91 for the reasons stated therein including the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999. The petitioner submitted its objections to the proposal. However, the 2nd respondent by the order dated 11-7-2000 rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner under Rule 12 (5) (d) of the Rules. In these orders the 2nd respondent stated that in view of the revisional orders of the State Government dated 30-10-99, referred to supra, the petitioner may approach the 3rd respondent for participation in the joint venture. ( 20 ) WHILE so the 3rd respondent issued the tender notification dated 4-1-2001 inviting bids. The petitioner contends that the pre-qualifications stipulated in the tender notification are such as would disable the petitioner from participating in the tender-cum-public auction, as he does not satisfy the qualifications. ( 20 ) WHILE so the 3rd respondent issued the tender notification dated 4-1-2001 inviting bids. The petitioner contends that the pre-qualifications stipulated in the tender notification are such as would disable the petitioner from participating in the tender-cum-public auction, as he does not satisfy the qualifications. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to call for an open tender-cum-auction in view of the revisional orders dated 30-10-99 which enable the petitioner to participate in any joint venture that the 3rd respondent may involve itself in the matter of prospecting quarrying operations. The petitioner also contends that the alienation of lands made by the Government in favour of the 3rd respondent is subject to the preferential leasehold rights of the petitioner and therefore if the 3rd respondent decides to grant mining lease, it should be granted to the petitioner. ( 21 ) RELIEF is sought in the writ petition on the facts and broad contentions set out above. ( 22 ) RULE 12 (5) (b) of the Rules mandates that an application for grant of prospecting licence or quarrying licence for granite shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. Whenever, more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant licence or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing. ( 23 ) THE 2nd proviso stipulates that where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land, the Licencee shall have a preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of the land over any other person, in case he has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and has submitted a prospecting report in such land and such right can be exercised only once over the entire prospected area. ( 24 ) IN the light of the above provisions under the Rules no doubt the earlier application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease would have priority over a similar application made by the 3rd respondent. At the time of the application either of the petitioner in the year 1991 or the 3rd respondent on 11-11-94 the land in question was under the control and vestiture of the Animal Husbandry Department. No quarry lease could have been granted by the State Government without the approval of or a no objection certificate" from the Animal Husbandry Department. At the time of the application either of the petitioner in the year 1991 or the 3rd respondent on 11-11-94 the land in question was under the control and vestiture of the Animal Husbandry Department. No quarry lease could have been granted by the State Government without the approval of or a no objection certificate" from the Animal Husbandry Department. No such approval was granted by the Animal Husbandry Department. On the issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999, the land in question was divested from the Animal Husbandry Department and stood vested in the 3rd respondent. Thereafter a prospecting licence was granted to the 3rd respondent. Meanwhile in the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology dated 13-10-92 rejecting the petitioner s application for quarry lease, the State Government inter alia enabled the petitioner to participate in any joint venture if the 3rd respondent considers establishment of units in granite industry in the joint venture. There is nothing in this revisional order of the State Government dated 30-10-99 which disables the 3rd respondent from stipulating pre-qualifications for participation in the joint venture. The mere fact that the petitioner applied for quarry lease in the year 1991 does not ipso facto inhere in it any manner of right and regardless of subsequent developments, to be a partner with the 3rd respondent for prospecting and quarrying of black granite in the three Survey Nos. in R. L. Puram village. Despite vague assertions that the action of the State Government in alienating the land in question in favour of the 3rd respondent is illegal, the petitioner has not challenged G. O. Ms. No. 23 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH. III) Department, dt. 22-2-1999. There is also nothing in the revisional order of the State Government dated 30-10-99 which disables the 3rd respondent from inviting bids by tender-cum-public auction for participating in joint venture with it for prospecting and quarrying of galaxy granite in the three Survey Numbers in R. L. Puram village. ( 25 ) IN the analysis above I see no merit in the writ petition. ( 26 ) THE A. P. Mineral Development Corporation has been granted a prospecting licence for black Granite over an extent of 36. 02 Hectors in Sy. Nos. ( 25 ) IN the analysis above I see no merit in the writ petition. ( 26 ) THE A. P. Mineral Development Corporation has been granted a prospecting licence for black Granite over an extent of 36. 02 Hectors in Sy. Nos. 52, 52/3, 54/3c and 52/4a of R. L. Puram village for a period of two years by the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 5-8-2000. These orders have been issued pursuant to the permission accorded by the Government to the Director of Mines and Geology under Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Rules. The first proviso to Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Rules enables the Director of Mines and Geology to grant a prospecting licence or quarry lease to an applicant whose application is received later in preference to earlier application with the prior approval of the State Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. The Director of Mines and Geology recorded the reason that pursuant to the orders in G. O. Ms. No. 23 dated 22-2-99, the land in the above Sy. Nos. has been alienated in favour of A. P. Mineral Development Corporation and the Corporation has also remitted the entire amount as directed in the G. O. to the District Collector thus becoming the owner of land in question. It is also recorded by the Director of Mines and Geology that as the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation is the owner and in possession of the lands in question in the three Sy. Nos. the question of obtaining surface rights by the other applicants does not arise. Further as the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation has itself applied by its letter dated 10-5-2000 seeking conversion of its application filed on 10-11-1994 for a quarry lease into an application for prospecting licence, a prospecting licence has been granted to it after obtaining the permission of the State Government. These circumstances too disentitle the petitioners for any relief. ( 27 ) THERE is yet another reason to reject the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. Prior to 1-6-1999 the mineral granite having been considered as a minor mineral, the grant of quarrying lease therefor was an area wholly governed by the rules made by the State Government in exercise of power available to the State under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Prior to 1-6-1999 the mineral granite having been considered as a minor mineral, the grant of quarrying lease therefor was an area wholly governed by the rules made by the State Government in exercise of power available to the State under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. ( 28 ) HAVING regard to Entry 23 in the State List in the VII Schedule of the Constitution, the State has a legislative competence in respect of the enumerated field of legislation - regulation of mines and minerals development. This allocated State field is however, made subject to the provisions of List 1 with respect to regulation and development under the control of Union. Entry 54 of List 1 of the VII Schedule enumerates the legislative field regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest". The Union has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for shortthe Act ) in exercise of the legislative power inhering under Entry 54 of List 1. Sec. 2 of the Act sets out the declaration as to the expediency of the Union control. Consequent on this enactment the entirety of the field of legislation enumerated in Entry 23 of the State List has been pre-empted and occupied by the Union Legislation - the Act. The State is thus denuded of legislative power as well as the concomitant executive power in respect of mines and mineral development qua the legislative field under Entry 23 of the State List in the light of the pre-eminent occupation of this field by the Act. This is the settled position in this area vide - The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459 ; State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241 ; State of Orissa v. M/s. M. A. Tulloch and Co. , AIR 1964 SC 1284 ; Bajinath Kedia v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1436 ; D. K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 1323; The India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 85 . , AIR 1964 SC 1284 ; Bajinath Kedia v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1436 ; D. K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 1323; The India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 85 . ( 29 ) SECTION 15 of the Act however enables the State Government, by notification in the official gazette, to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral and for purposes connected therewith. In exercise of these powers the State of Andhra Pradesh has made the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. ( 30 ) SECTION 18 of the Act obligates the Central Government to take all steps as may be necessary for the conservation and systematic development of minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling the pollution which has been caused by prospecting or mining operations and for such purposes the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make such rules as it thinks fit. In exercise of this power the Central government has made the Granite Conservation And Development Rules, 1999 (for short1999 Rules ). These rules were published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) in G. S. R. 398 (E) dated 1-6-1999. Rule 4 of 1999 Rules ordains that no lease shall be granted by the State Government unless it is satisfied that there is evidence to show that the area for which the lease is applied for has been prospected earlier for granite or the existence of granite therein has been established otherwise. The 1999 Rules also enact an elaborate regulatory framework to ensure conservation and systematic development of the mineral Granite. The 1999 Rules also enact an elaborate regulatory framework to ensure conservation and systematic development of the mineral Granite. ( 31 ) HAVING regard to the pre-eminent occupation of the field of regulation of mines and minerals development by the provisions of the Act and the pro tanto eclipse of the State legislative field, in the light of the subjection clause in Entry 23 of the State List, the field enumerated in Entry 54 of the Union List coupled with the declaration of expediency of Union control in Sec. 2 of the Act, the inevitable constitutional position is that the Rules made by the State Government in respect of minor minerals insofar as they relate to the mineral Granite, in exercise of the rule making power delegated to the State under Section 15 of the Act, will operate subservient to the 1999 Rules made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Act. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act also warrant the interpretative analysis that the Rules made by the Central Government within the sphere permitted by Section 18 prevail over the rules made by the State Government under Section 15, insofar as these rules relate to the field of subordinate legislation enabled by Section 18 of the Act. ( 32 ) WITH a view to bring the provisions of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 in conformity with the 1999 Rules, certain amendments were made to Rule 12 (5) of the Rules, in G. O. Ms. No. 227/i and C (M. I) Department, dated 23-3-2000. As amended Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Rules added the concept ofprospecting licences to the pre-existing position of quarry lease. Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Rules now requires that an application for prospecting licence or quarry lease for Granite shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt and whenever more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant licence or lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing. The proviso to the sub-rule enables the Director to grant a P. L. or Q. L. to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to an earlier application, with the prior approval of the Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. The proviso to the sub-rule enables the Director to grant a P. L. or Q. L. to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to an earlier application, with the prior approval of the Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. The further proviso to this sub-rule ordains a preferential right in the matter of obtaining quarry lease in respect of the land in question to a person who has been granted a prospecting licence over any other person, if such prospecting licence holder has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and has submitted a prospecting report in respect of such land. ( 33 ) IN the light of these regulatory dynamics and the amendment of the Rules consequent on the 1999 Rules, applications for grant of prospecting licences would have to be made afresh after the coming into force of the Amended State Rules (i. e. after 23-3-2000 ). None of the applications for grant of quarry lease as made either by the petitioners herein or by the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation in the years 1990, 1991, 1994 could be considered automatically as applications for grant of prospecting licences under the changed regulatory environment brought about by the 1999 Rules or the amended State Rules. It also needs to be noticed that the land earlier belonging to the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department in the three Sy. Nos. in R. L. Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, stood transferred to the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation with the issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 23 dated 23-2-99, prior to the 1999 Rules and the amended State Rules. The claims of the respective petitioners founded on their earlier quarry lease applications in 1990 and 1991, are thus seen to be misconceived. None of the petitioners have either pleaded or shown to this Court that they have made applications for prospecting licenses under the current regulatory environment consequent on the 1999 Rules or that any applications were made prior to applications for prospecting licences by the A. P. Mineral Development Corporation. There is thus nothing on record, pleaded, urged, or demonstrated, substantiating the petitioners claim to a prioritised consideration vis-a-vis A. P. Mineral Development Corporation, for the grant of a prospecting licence in their favour in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/3 of R. L. Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District. There is thus nothing on record, pleaded, urged, or demonstrated, substantiating the petitioners claim to a prioritised consideration vis-a-vis A. P. Mineral Development Corporation, for the grant of a prospecting licence in their favour in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 55/3a, 55/3c and 55/3 of R. L. Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District. ( 34 ) ON the aforesaid analysis the three writ petitions are seen to be devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. ( 35 ) NO order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.