Judgment The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and one of its activities is to undertake mining operations. It is stated that the petitioner owns Acs.28.00 of land in survey Nos.188, 692, 693 and 697 of Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. There are deposits of silica sand upon the land. The petitioner submitted an application, on 03.06.2009, before the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, with a request to grant mining lease for quarrying the silica sand. G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998, issued by Industries and Commerce Department directs that a mining lease can be granted, in respect of any land, only when the Tahasildar of the area issues No Objection Certificate (NOC). The procedure to be followed, in this regard, is also indicated. As provided for under the G.O., the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Tahasildar, Chillakur Mandal, the 5th respondent herein. However, he did not respond within a reasonable time. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18856 of 2009 feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.09.2009 directing the respondents therein, to process the application and complete the process. The District Collector, Nellore, the 2nd respondent, issued proceedings, dated 16.04.2010, directing the 5th respondent to enquire into the matter and submit a report. In compliance with the same, the 5th respondent submitted his report dated 26.07.2010, stating that the land is patta in nature, and there are cashew nut trees upon the land, and recommended for grant of NOC. Further, correspondence has ensued among the authorities of the Revenue Department. Ultimately, through proceedings, dated 09.04.2012, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that in view of the memo, dated 26.04.2007 issued by the Government, no lease can be granted for quarrying silica in the area. It is stated that though the Government issued the memo, dated 26.04.2007, directing cancellation of the existing leases and prohibiting grant of further leases, for quarrying silica in nine villages of Chillakur Mandal, the project did not materialise and the Government itself granted leases, over the areas in the villages covered by the memo. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 09.04.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 2 and 4. According to them, the special economic zone is contemplated in the area and applications in that behalf are pending. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 09.04.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 2 and 4. According to them, the special economic zone is contemplated in the area and applications in that behalf are pending. It is stated that the land, as regards which, the petitioner sought lease is covered by the identified area for special economic zone. Heard Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. The petitioner applied for grant of lease in respect of Acs.28.00 of land, owned by it, as patta. When there was undue delay, in processing of the application, the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to hasten the processing of the application. Thereafter, much correspondence ensued and the 2nd respondent ultimately issued the impugned memo. Though the authority to grant mining lease is the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology of the concerned area, the application was examined in detail by the 2nd respondent, in the context of grant of NOC. The insistence on submission of NOC is mostly for the purpose of ensuring that the leases are not granted over Government or forest lands, when applications are filed by treating such lands as private patta lands. The 5th respondent submitted a clear report stating that the land held by the petitioner is patta and that there are no Government claims. The matter ought to have ended at that. The memo dated 26.04.2007 was issued by the Government in Industries and Commercial Department. It directed the cancellation of the existing leases for silica sand over the lands in nine villages viz., Chiptavaram, Vellapaleni, Ballavolu, Kanupuru, Addepalli, Siddavarani, Tamminipatnam, Momidi Karlapdi and Kotahpatnam of Chillakur Mandal. The direction therein was to the Authorities of the Mines and Geology Department. When there exists an independent department to regulate its own affairs, there was absolutely no basis for the 2nd respondent to intrude into the other department under the guise of examining the feasibility of granting NOC. The interdepartmental discipline was disturbed, if not violated. The very basis for issuance of memo dated 26.04.2007 prohibiting or cancelling the leases for silica sand over the lands in the villages therein was that certain projects were contemplated in that area. The interdepartmental discipline was disturbed, if not violated. The very basis for issuance of memo dated 26.04.2007 prohibiting or cancelling the leases for silica sand over the lands in the villages therein was that certain projects were contemplated in that area. In other words, the Government contemplated to acquire fairly large extents of land in the area, and wanted to ensure that the lands are made available to stakeholders, free from any activities, claims or encumbrances. Howsoever laudable, the object may be, the restrictions placed upon the owners of the land, cannot be countenanced, in terms of law. Whether one examines issue from the point of view of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, or the constitutional right under Article 300-A, the 1st respondent was not at all justified in placing restrictions upon the owners of the lands in those villages, to enjoy the rights. It is only when a notification under the relevant provisions of law is issued providing for acquisition, etc., that the rights of citizens correspondingly get restricted. The concept of eminent domain confers the right upon the State to acquire the properties of its citizens only by initiating the process under law. The right of a State under that concept cannot be stretched to the extent of prohibiting the exercise of rights, upon a piece of land, in contemplation of its acquisition. The petitioner has stated that de hors the memo, dated 26.04.2007, the Government issued various G.Os., granting mining leases, over the areas, in respect of the lands in the villages, referred to in the memo. G.O.Ms.Nos.72, 73 and 74, dated 30.07.2010 are such orders, granting mining leases in respect of about 100 acres, in different survey numbers of Addepalli village, which figures in the memo, dated 26.04.2007. The prohibition contained in the memo did not come in the way of the Government in granting mining leases. However, the 2nd respondent states that the memo prohibits grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. This is a clear case of discrimination and arbitrariness. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo dated 26.04.2007, is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, duly taking into account, G.O.Ms.Nos.72, 73 and 74, dated 30.07.2010, issued by it. This is a clear case of discrimination and arbitrariness. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo dated 26.04.2007, is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, duly taking into account, G.O.Ms.Nos.72, 73 and 74, dated 30.07.2010, issued by it. This process shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.