Judgment :- P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J. A chequered litigative history precedes these three cases making it necessary to recount in some detail their factual substratum. 2. The Perecherla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited, Perecherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District (for brevity, ‘the Society’), was granted the first renewal of its lease for quarrying Road Metal (RM) over an extent of 8 acres in Survey No.155/A1, Plot Nos.15 and 16 of Chinapalakalur Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, for a period of ten years under the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur, bearing No.2310/Q1/97 dated 16.11.1997. This renewal, under the lease deed executed vide office proceedings No.1741/Q/97 dated 28.03.1998, was from 13.07.1997 upto 12.07.2007. Road Metal is a minor mineral specified under Item-3 of Schedule-I to Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1966’). As per Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1966, the Society being the lessee had to file its application for the second renewal of the lease before 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease period, i.e., before 13.04.2007. However, the Society failed to make an application within the stipulated time. This was in spite of the Mining authorities informing the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, under letter dated 23.03.2007 to take necessary steps for filing of the quarry lease renewal application. 3. It was only after the expiry of the stipulated period that the Society filed an application through its President, Shaik Abdullah, for grant of the quarry lease. This application was made on 04.06.2007, i.e, the 38th day before the expiry of the lease period. However, by a notarized affidavit dated 23.06.2007, Shaik Abdullah, the President of the Society, withdrew the said application dated 04.06.2007. Relevant to note, three separate applications were received by the Mining authorities during the month of April, 2007 for grant of a quarry lease over an extent of 10 acres, including the subject 8 acres which was under lease with the Society. Relevant to note, three separate applications were received by the Mining authorities during the month of April, 2007 for grant of a quarry lease over an extent of 10 acres, including the subject 8 acres which was under lease with the Society. These applications were made by (i) Shaik Nusrath Banu (the wife of Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society); (ii) Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla, an organization represented by its President, Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society and (iii) M/s. Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla, represented by its Proprietor, Fatima Atiyyatul Kabir (the wife of Ganje Shahed, who is no other than the elder brother of Shaik Abdul Gani, the Secretary of the Society). Shaik Nusrath Bhanu, Shaik Ganje Shahed and Fatima Atiyyatul Kabir, who had earlier been the members of the Society in their own right stated that they had resigned from the Society and therefore, could maintain their independent applications. 4. While so, the Society again submitted a fresh renewal application through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, on 26.06.2007. The reason put forth for the making of this application was that the President, Shaik Abdullah, was stated to be far away from the Headquarters and the Secretary, Abdul Gani, was said to have submitted his resignation and therefore, the members of the Society had conducted a General Body Meeting on 26.06.2007 and resolved to authorize Gandikota Shaik Tangella, Director and Managing Committee Member of the Society, to file the quarry lease application. 5. The Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, addressed a letter in Rc.No.671/2006-B4 dated 27.06.2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, requesting him to consider the application made by the Society through Gandikota Shaik Tangella and grant the lease in favour of the Society keeping in view the livelihood of its 320 member workers. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide his letter No.3437/Q/2007 dated 19.07.2007 addressed to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, recommended the grant of the lease in favour of the Society, accepting the application filed by it through Gandikota Shaik Tangella on 26.06.2007. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide his letter No.3437/Q/2007 dated 19.07.2007 addressed to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, recommended the grant of the lease in favour of the Society, accepting the application filed by it through Gandikota Shaik Tangella on 26.06.2007. He also recommended the rejection of the applications made by Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla, Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, on two grounds, viz., (i) that the applications were premature, not being in accordance with Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 1966 and (ii) as the applications by those who were directly or indirectly connected with the members of the Society were contrary to Sections 21 and 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1964’) and the Bye-laws of the Society. 6. At this stage, Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 was filed by the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, challenging the recommendation for renewal of the lease in favour of Gandikota Shaik Tangella on the ground that he was incompetent in the capacity of a Director of the Society to maintain such an application; and seeking a consequential direction to the authorities not to consider the renewal application dated 26.06.2007 made by Gandikota Shaik Tangella for the subject quarry lease. Shaik Nusrath Banu had also filed a Writ Petition, W.P.No.15173 of 2007, seeking a declaration that the action of the authorities in not considering her application dated 16.04.2007 was arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 28.03.2008 directing the authorities to consider the applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu and the Society made through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, duly taking into consideration the objections made by Shaik Nusrath Banu in her petition dated 09.08.2007 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Acting thereupon, the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, issued Memo No.12364/M.II(1)/2007-1 dated 14.05.2008, referring to the order dated 28.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.15173 of 2007 and also the representation dated 09.08.2007 of Shaik Nusrath Banu, and accorded permission to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, to grant the quarry lease in favour of the Society by condoning the delay in the filing of the renewal application by Gandikota Shaik Tangella. 8. 8. Aggrieved thereby, Shaik Nusrath Banu approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 challenging the aforesaid Memo dated 14.05.2008, alleging that the same was in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder and also the order dated 28.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.15173 of 2007. She sought a consequential direction to the authorities to dispose of her application dated 16.04.2007 in accordance with law along with other applications. 9. It appears that the Mining authorities proceeded in the matter basing upon the Government’s permission embodied in the Memo dated 14.05.2008 and in due course, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide his proceedings No.3571/Q1/2007 dated 21.05.2008 granted the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, for a period of ten years. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, opined that the applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla, Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, were premature and accordingly rejected the same under Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1966. 10. While so, Writ Petition Nos.16885 of 2007 and 11065 of 2008 were dismissed by individual and separate Judgments dated 21.10.2008 by the same learned Judge. Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 filed by the Society through its President, Shaik Abdullah, was dismissed stating that the President of the Society had left the Headquarters and the Secretary, Shaik Abdul Gani, resigned from office and in such circumstances the General Body of the Society met on 26.06.2007 and authorized Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Director of the Society, to submit a quarry lease application on behalf of the Society. The learned Judge was of the opinion that Gandikota Shaik Tangella could not be said to be incompetent to file an application for renewal of the lease on behalf of the Society. The learned Judge observed that as the General Body of the Society consisting of 243 members, in its Meeting held on 26.06.2007, resolved to make an application for renewal of the lease and authorized Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Director of the Society and a Member of the Managing Committee, to make such an application, the writ petition filed by the President of the Society against the interest of the Society was misconceived and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the Society represented by its President, Shaik Abdullah, filed an intra-court appeal in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. 11. In so far as Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu is concerned, the learned Judge took note of the fact that there was no specific provision in the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1966 for condonation of delay in making an application for renewal of the lease but was inclined to accept the submission made in support of the impugned Memo dated 14.05.2008, relying upon Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules of 1966. Having stated so, the learned Judge went on to observe that even assuming that the impugned Memo dated 14.05.2008 was illegal in the absence of a specific empowering provision in the Act of 1957 or the Rules of 1966 for condoning the delay in the making of a renewal application, there was no bar under the Act of 1957 or the Rules of 1966, to consider the said renewal application dated 26.06.2007 as an application for a fresh lease along with other applications. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the application made by the Society through Gandikota Shaik Tangella stood higher in the order of preference specified under Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1966 and enjoyed an advantage over the application made by the petitioner-Shaik Nusrath Banu. The learned Judge therefore held that even assuming that in the absence of any statutory provision, the Government ought not to have condoned the delay in the filing of the renewal application and consequently the renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, was illegal; the order of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, dated 21.05.2008 granting the lease in favour of the Society basing on the said application could as well be treated as a fresh lease and did not warrant interference by the Court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner-Shaik Nusrath Banu carried the matter in appeal by way of W.A.No.1810 of 2008. 12. It is interesting to note that in the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 reference is made to the order passed on the same day in Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner-Shaik Nusrath Banu carried the matter in appeal by way of W.A.No.1810 of 2008. 12. It is interesting to note that in the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 reference is made to the order passed on the same day in Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007. However, in the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.16885 of 2007 no reference is made to the order of the same date in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008. Though the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, the Mining authorities and the authorities of the Co-operation Department of the State, were parties to both the writ petitions and consequently, the two writ appeals, curiously none of them took any steps to seek a joint hearing of the two appeals or place on record in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 though it related to the same issue. Being unaware of the order dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 upholding the order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting renewal of the lease to the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (SK,J) was a member, heard the matter on its own merits. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal, a new entrant made his appearance in this imbroglio, viz., S.K.Mastan Vali claiming to be the President of the Society. It was his case that the General Body of the Society in its Meeting held on 26.03.2008 expelled Shaik Abdullah, the President, and elected him as the President of the Society. 13. In W.A. No.467 of 2009, the Division Bench found on facts that the authorities of the Co-operation Department of the State were biased and had shown official favouritism to Gandikota Shaik Tangella and that Gandikota Shaik Tangella, being a Director of the Society and a Member of the Managing Committee, did not have the authority as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 to convene a General Body Meeting. Further, the Bench also found that the resolution authorizing him to apply for renewal was not signed by 243 Members of the Society, as erroneously observed by the learned single Judge but only by 13 Members. The Bench also found that Gandikota Shaik Tangella had taken a challan for making payment to the Mining authorities, on 25.06.2007, i.e., one day prior to the resolution passed by the so-called General Body of the Society in his favour. In such circumstances, the Division Bench opined that the application dated 26.06.2007 made by the Society through its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, ought not to have been forwarded to the Mining authorities with the recommendation of the Co-operation Department. The Bench also observed that as on the date of the said recommendation dated 27.06.2007 by the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, Shaik Abdullah was still the President of the Society and had not been removed from that post. Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed the proceedings of the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, in his letter bearing Rc.No.671/2006-B4 dated 27.06.2007 and the consequential proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur District, in letter No.3437/2007 dated 19.07.2007 recommending the grant of lease for a period of ten years in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella. The Bench made it clear that all further actions which were taken in pursuance of the above mentioned proceedings were liable to be quashed and were accordingly quashed. The Bench further made it clear that if the Society represented by its President or Vice President made an application for renewal of the quarry lease, the respondent authorities should consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it in accordance with law. 14. In the light of the order of the Division Bench setting at naught not only the proceedings dated 27.06.2007 of the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, and the proceedings dated 19.07.2007 of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, but also the consequent further actions, the permission granted by the Government for condonation of the delay in the filing of the renewal application, vide its Memo dated 14.05.2008, and the consequential proceedings dated 21.05.2008 of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the quarry lease to the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, also stood nullified. 15. 15. In that view of the matter, no further orders, strictly speaking, need to be passed in Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 arising out of Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu challenging the Government’s Memo dated 14.05.2008. However, as certain aspects dealt with by the learned single Judge in the order dated 21.10.2008 passed therein have a crucial bearing on the resolution of the issues raised in the other two matters before us, we propose to deal with the challenge to the order in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008 also on its own merits. 16. As stated supra, no steps were taken by the parties concerned, some of whom were well aware of the pendency of the two writ appeals before the same Division Bench, to link up the hearing of both the appeals. Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 therefore continued to progress in its own course while W.A.No.467 of 2009 was decided. 17. As matters stood thus, taking advantage of the concluding observation made by the Division Bench in its order dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, with regard to the filing of a proper renewal application by the Society and its consideration as per law, the Mining authorities, acting through the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, issued fresh proceedings vide Proc.No.4977/Q1/2009 dated 25.08.2009. It appears that after the order was passed in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009 on 14.07.2009, a fresh quarry lease renewal application was made by the Society through its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, on 15.07.2009. Applications were also made by Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla on 17.07.2009 and the Society through its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, on 19.08.2009. 18. It appears that after the order was passed in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009 on 14.07.2009, a fresh quarry lease renewal application was made by the Society through its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, on 15.07.2009. Applications were also made by Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla on 17.07.2009 and the Society through its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, on 19.08.2009. 18. Having referred to the earlier proceedings dated 21.05.2008 which were set at naught by the order in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, in his revised proceedings dated 25.08.2009, referred to the concluding observation of the Division Bench that if the Society represented by its President or Vice President made an application for renewal of the quarry lease, the same should be considered by the respondent authorities and an appropriate order should be passed thereon in accordance with law, and observed that as per the information furnished by the Divisional Co-operative Officer (FAC), Guntur, in his letter No.4880/Q/09 dated 06.08.2009, S.K.Mastan Vali and Shaik Alla Bhakshi were the newly elected President and Vice President of the Society from 20.04.2008. Stating that the applications made by Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla and the Society through its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, were liable to be rejected as per the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009, in view of the renewal application filed by the President of the Society, the authority granted the renewal of the quarry lease in favour of the Society represented by its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, stating that the action was as per the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. The renewal was for a period of ten years with effect from 13.07.2007 to 12.07.2017. 19. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 25.08.2009, the Society represented by its Ex-President, Shaik Abdullah, filed Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009. Similarly, Shaik Nusrath Banu filed Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009 challenging the proceedings dated 25.08.2009. Shaik Nusrath Banu also filed an application in WAMP No.2377 of 2009 in her pending Writ Appeal, W.A.No.1810 of 2008, seeking suspension of the proceedings dated 25.08.2009. 20. Notice was served upon the contesting parties in Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 and separate counter affidavits are filed by the Society represented by its President, S.K. Mastan Vali, the fifth respondent therein and also the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, the sixth respondent. 21. 20. Notice was served upon the contesting parties in Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 and separate counter affidavits are filed by the Society represented by its President, S.K. Mastan Vali, the fifth respondent therein and also the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, the sixth respondent. 21. Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009, on the other hand, came up for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court on 13.10.2009 and was directed to be listed along with Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 which were already before us. Though notice has not been issued to the respondents in Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009, it is relevant to note that the parties thereto are already before us in the connected cases, W.A.No.1810 of 2008 and W.P.No.19355 of 2009. Further, the issue raised is identical to that in W.P.No.19355 of 2009 and does not require any fresh pleadings from the respondents therein. Therefore, we propose to dispose of W.P.No.21842 of 2009 also by way of this common Judgment at the stage of admission itself. 22. As the proceedings dated 25.08.2009 are substantially in issue in Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009 filed by Shaik Nusrath Banu, we do not propose to pass any orders on the application filed by her in WAMP No.2377 of 2009 in W.A.No.1810 of 2008 seeking suspension of the said proceedings. The said WAMP is therefore liable to be dismissed. 23. These, then, are the underlying facts lending support to the long drawn litigation surrounding the subject quarry lease. 24. The facts aforestated put it beyond doubt that all is not well with the Society. Several persons claiming to be the authorized representatives of the Society are litigating on its behalf. However, it is not for this Court to decide the disputes amongst these warring members of the Society who are claiming its leadership. It is brought to our notice that this dispute is substantially in issue in a pending proceeding before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to make any observations with regard to the manner in which this Society has been operating or the conduct of the various warring parties, claiming leadership over its affairs. The cases before us are amenable to resolution on issues other than this and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate. 25. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to make any observations with regard to the manner in which this Society has been operating or the conduct of the various warring parties, claiming leadership over its affairs. The cases before us are amenable to resolution on issues other than this and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate. 25. As the matter stands, the earlier proceeding dated 21.05.2008 granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its Director, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, no longer survives in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. Similarly, the permission given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo dated 14.05.2008 for condoning the delay in the filing of the renewal application dated 26.06.2007 by the Director of the Society, Gandikota Shaik Tangella, also does not survive. The issue now boils down to the validity of the proceedings dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by S.K. Mastan Vali, claiming to be the present President. 26. It is relevant to note that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, bases the grant of this second renewal only on the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the concluding portion of its Judgment dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. It is however relevant to note that the Division Bench specifically stated that if the Society made an application for renewal of the quarry lease through its President or Vice President, the same was to be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, it is not open to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, to baldy state that the grant of the second renewal was as per the above order dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009. In fact, the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2009, which are under challenge in W.P.Nos.19355 and 21842 of 2009, do not disclose any consideration of the matter whatsoever, much less, in accordance with law as directed by the Division Bench. 27. The subject quarry lease is in respect of Road Metal, a minor mineral covered by the Rules of 1966. In fact, the impugned proceedings dated 25.08.2009, which are under challenge in W.P.Nos.19355 and 21842 of 2009, do not disclose any consideration of the matter whatsoever, much less, in accordance with law as directed by the Division Bench. 27. The subject quarry lease is in respect of Road Metal, a minor mineral covered by the Rules of 1966. Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1966 makes it clear that an application for the renewal of a quarry lease shall be made at least 90 days before the expiry of the period of the lease and shall be disposed of before the expiry of the lease period. Rule 13(2) reads as under: “13. Disposal of applications:— (1) ………. (2) The application for the renewal of a quarry lease shall be accompanied by a Treasury or Bank challan for rupees one thousand in token of remittance towards fee and shall be made at least ninety days before the expiry of the period of lease to the Deputy Director and it shall be disposed of before the expiry of the lease period. ……….” 28. Rule 12 deals with grant of the lease and posits under clause 4 thereof that where the quarry lease holders fail to apply for renewal of the lease within 90 days before the expiry of the lease held by them as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13, fresh applications for grant of the quarry lease in respect of those areas will be entertained 30 days before the expiry of the lease. Rule 12(4) is extracted below: “12. Grant of lease.— (1) ………. (2) ………. (3) ………. (4) In case where the quarry lease holders fail to apply for renewal of the lease of the areas within ninety days before the expiry of the lease held by them, as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13, fresh application for grant of quarry lease, in respect of those areas, will be entertained thirty days before the expiry of the lease.” 29. It is in the process of interpreting the above stated provisions that the Mining authorities had earlier come to the conclusion that the quarry lease applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla and Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla were premature in as much as they were submitted before 30 days prior to the date of the expiry of the lease. It is in the process of interpreting the above stated provisions that the Mining authorities had earlier come to the conclusion that the quarry lease applications of Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla and Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla were premature in as much as they were submitted before 30 days prior to the date of the expiry of the lease. The Mining authorities appear to be of the opinion that they can only accept such applications, under Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 1966, during the 30 days immediately prior to the expiry of the existing lease. This opinion is erroneous as will be demonstrated hereinafter. 30. In this regard, it may be noted that the interpretation of Rules 12(4) and 13(2) of the Rules of 1966 to the extent relevant for the purposes of this case, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the aforestated provisions as they stood then in THE LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALIKUR v. DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY, HYDERABAD AIR 1993 SC 147 . The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the use of the word “within” in Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 1966 had given room for avoidable controversy. However, the Court noticed that Rule 12(4) expressly referred to Rule 13(2) and therefore, it could not mean anything different than what is provided by Rule 13(2). On a proper and harmonious reading of Rules 13(2) and 12(4) and other allied provisions, the Supreme Court held that the following scheme emerged: “(1) An existing lessee has to apply for renewal, if he so chooses, at least ninety days before the expiry of the period of his lease. Such application has to be disposed of before the expiry of his lease. If it is not so disposed of, the application must be deemed to have been rejected [Rule 13(2)]. (2) Within ninety days of the expiry of the lease and thirty days before the expiry of the lease, it is open to others too to apply for grant of lease in respect of the area, or a part of the area, held by the lessee [Rule 12(4)]. These applications may be termed as second category applications. If any such application or applications are received under Rule 12(4) they should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. These applications may be termed as second category applications. If any such application or applications are received under Rule 12(4) they should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. (3) Applications for lease received within thirty days of the expiry of the lease and those received after the expiry of the lease constitute the third category. These applications too have to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. (4) The above three categories are in the descending order. Each category enjoys a preference over the other. In other words, the application for renewal filed by the existing lessee under Rule 13(2) shall be taken up first and disposed of. If renewal is granted, exhausting the area of lease, no occasion arises for considering the applications falling in the second and third category. In case, however, where no application for renewal is filed or where it is filed but rejected, the second category applications shall have to be taken up and considered. If any of them are allowed and lease granted, exhausting the area of lease, there is no occasion for considering the third category applications. In case, no application falling in the second category is received or if received, is rejected, does the occasion arise for taking up and considering the third category applications. (5) We may clarify in the interest of unbroken exploitation of mineral wealth, that the authority can well receive the applications falling within all the three categories, if and when filed. For example, he ought not to refuse to receive the second category applications merely because the renewal application is filed and so on. But the applications received shall be placed in their proper category and considered in the order indicated above.” 31. Certain aspects of the scheme aforestated, as culled out by the Supreme Court, may not hold good at present owing to amendment of the relevant Rules subsequently, but the said changes have no relevance for the purposes of this case. 32. In the light of the aforestated exposition by the Apex Court on the Rule position, it is clear that the Mining authorities were not correct in castigating the applications made by Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla and Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla as premature. 32. In the light of the aforestated exposition by the Apex Court on the Rule position, it is clear that the Mining authorities were not correct in castigating the applications made by Shaik Nusrath Banu, Anjuman-E-Islamia, Perecherla and Alkabir Stone Crusher, Perecherla as premature. In fact, as per the Supreme Court’s observations, their applications would fall in the second category in the order of preference and cannot be treated as premature merely because they were filed before 30 days prior to the expiry of the lease. It is no doubt true that these applications may well be liable for rejection on the ground of violation of the Act of 1964 or the Bye-laws of the Society, if the same is made out. However, those aspects were not dealt with by the Mining authorities while rejecting their applications by the earlier order dated 21.05.2008. 33. The aforestated Rules clearly posit the consequences that would follow upon the failure of the existing lessee to file his renewal application before 90 days of the expiry of the lease in terms of the consideration of other applications and therefore, it is not open to the Government to claim the right to condone any delay in the making of such an application unless there is a specific statutory provision which empowers it to do so. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, there is no provision either in the Act of 1957 or the Rules of 1966 which vests the Government or the Mining authorities with the power of condoning any delay on the part of the existing lessee in making his renewal application. Needless to mention, it is only when the existing lessee fails to make a proper renewal application within the stipulated time that the issue of considering the other applications as per the order of preference indicated by the Supreme Court in THE LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALIKUR (1 Supra), would arise. 34. Therefore, the question of the Government condoning the delay on the part of the Society in making an application for the second renewal of lease does not arise. The Society was required to make its renewal application before 13.04.2007 and none of the applications made by the Society, through its various so-called office bearers, was before that date. 34. Therefore, the question of the Government condoning the delay on the part of the Society in making an application for the second renewal of lease does not arise. The Society was required to make its renewal application before 13.04.2007 and none of the applications made by the Society, through its various so-called office bearers, was before that date. Relevant to note, in the impugned proceeding dated 25.08.2009, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur studiously ignored the aspect of the new renewal application of the Society through its President, S.K.Mastan Vali, being beyond time, though he referred to the observations of the learned single Judge in this regard in the order dated 21.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.11065 of 2008. Having steered clear of this crucial aspect, the authority conveniently chose to bank upon the concluding observation in the order dated 14.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009 as the motivation for the grant of renewal in favour of the Society. 35. In this regard, the contention of the authorities that Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules of 1966 authorized the condonation of delay earlier, through the Government Memo dated 14.05.2008, cannot be countenanced. Rule 11(1)(b) is as hereunder: “11. Power of the Government and the Director:- (1) Power of Government:-Government reserves the right- (a)………… (b) to grant the leases for any minor minerals by duly exempting from the priorities fixed under different provisions under these rules on nomination or otherwise subject to certain specified conditions for any category of land in favour of any section of the society; (c) …………” 36. Rule 11(1)(b) vests the Government with the right to grant leases for any minor mineral by duly exempting from the Rules of 1966 any category of land and any section of the society. Pertinent to note, the Memo dated 14.05.2008 condoning the delay in the filing of the earlier renewal application, does not trace its origin to exercise of power under Rule 11(1)(b). Further, Rule 11(1)(b) speaks of exemption being granted to categories of land and sections of the society. No such exercise is manifest in the case on hand dealing with one particular Labour Contract Co-operative Society. Therefore, recourse to Rule 11(1)(b) in the present case does not arise. 37. Further, Rule 11(1)(b) speaks of exemption being granted to categories of land and sections of the society. No such exercise is manifest in the case on hand dealing with one particular Labour Contract Co-operative Society. Therefore, recourse to Rule 11(1)(b) in the present case does not arise. 37. As stated supra, the scheme posited by Rules 13(2) and 12(4) and the other allied provisions of the Rules of 1966 provides certain specific consequences flowing from the failure on the part of an existing lessee to file his application before 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in THE LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALIKUR, (1 Supra), the applications received for grant of the quarry lease would have to be categorized as per the Rules of 1966 and in such priority, a proper renewal application filed in time would stand first. In the absence of a valid renewal application, the right of other applicants to be considered as per the order of preference would arise. In such a scenario, it would not be correct for the authorities to consider a time-barred renewal application as an application for grant of a fresh lease while continuing to give it priority and preference treating it as a renewal application. The finding of the learned Judge to the contrary, that such an exercise by the Mining authorities is permissible, is therefore opposed to the scheme of the Rules as culled out by the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained. Further, when the Mining authorities themselves granted the lease treating it as a renewal, it is not for this Court to convert it into or treat it as a fresh lease contrary to the intention and clear language of the proceedings. 38. It is also necessary to clarify that Road Metal, being a minor mineral specified under item 3 of Schedule-I to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966, attracts the order of preference enumerated under Rule 12(3) and not the order of preference under Rule 12(2) as stated by the learned single Judge. Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(3) read as under: “12. Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(3) read as under: “12. Grant of lease.— (1)………… (2) Whenever more than one application are received for grant of a quarry lease for minor minerals except sand, granite useful for cutting and polishing and marble and also the minerals specified under items at Sl.No.1 to 3(a) under Schedule-I to Rule 10 the Deputy Director shall dispose of the applications in order of preference specified below: (i) Applications of Government Department and Government Corporations and Companies; (ii) Applications of Labour Contract Co-operative Societies; (iii) Applications of unemployed persons who possess any recognized qualification in Geology, Geophysics, or Mining Engineering or any other allied subjects; (iv)Other applications; ………… (3) The quarry lease applications for minor minerals under items at Sl.No.1 to 3(a) of Schedule-I to Rule 10 shall be disposed of by the Deputy Director in order specified below:- (1) Applications of Societies of Professional/(local) Traditional stone cutters (waddaras). (2) Crusher owners who do not have quarries. (3) Unemployed youth holding Geology degree, and businessmen who propose to set up crushers. (4) Others: …………” 39. It is no doubt true that even under Rule 12(3) the order of preference specified vests Societies of Professionals/Traditional stone cutters with a preferential right over Crusher owners, Unemployed youth holding Geology degree/businessmen and others. In any event, it is for the authorities to consider the applications received for grant of the subject quarry lease in accordance with Rules of 1966 and in the light of this Judgment. 40. The grant of the second renewal by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur vide the proceedings dated 25.08.2009, basing upon the Society’s renewal application dated 15.07.2009, is therefore held to be unsustainable, as the said application was well beyond the time stipulated in Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1966 and this time, there was not even a pretense on the part of the authorities to condone this delay. The proceedings dated 25.08.2009 of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its President S.K.Mastan Vali, are therefore set aside. 41. The proceedings dated 25.08.2009 of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, granting the second renewal of the lease in favour of the Society represented by its President S.K.Mastan Vali, are therefore set aside. 41. Consequently, we direct the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur to process and consider the applications already received and those that may be received, within a time frame as shall be fixed by him keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the Rules of 1966, the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the observations made herein. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 42. Writ Appeal No.1810 of 2008, Writ Petition No.19355 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.21842 of 2009 are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. WAMP No.2377 of 2009 in W.A.No.1810 of 2008 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.