Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 152 (AP)

Ahobila Granites v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-03-16

D.RAMESH

body2021
ORDER: The writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Government in Memo No.11723/M.II(1)/2017, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 21.05.2018, granting approval in favour of the 4threspondent for overlooking the priorities and the orders of the Director of Mines and Geology in Notice No.19700/R4-1/2016, dated 29.06.2018 in deciding in principle to grant quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 and 338 of Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and requesting to submit approved mining plan, over-looking the prior application of the petitioner dated 3.7.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to grant quarry lease on the application of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2014 for grant of quarry lease for black granite in over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323, and 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.338. 2. Heard Smt.N.Shoba, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Challa Gunarajana appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of quarry lease for black granite for an extent of 4.000 hectares in Sy.No.338 of Pulletipally village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and another application for an extent of 2.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 of the same village, to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/3rd respondent herein, on 26.06.2014. Subsequently, on 03.07.2014 the petitioner filed fresh applications, with correct map as per Rules for an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 of Pulletipally village, C.K.Pally Mandal, and for 3.000 hectares in Sy.No. 338 of the said village, both the applications were received by the 3rd respondent on 04.07.2014. 4. Subsequent to the receipt of the applications, a phone call was received by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent’s office, to attend for survey and inspection scheduled to be held on 25.07.2014. On that husband of the petitioner, representing the petitioner, attended the office of the 3rd respondent on 25.07.2014, in turn the surveyor of the office of the respondent has informed that in view of the work pressure, they have postponed the schedule and the date will be intimated later. On that husband of the petitioner, representing the petitioner, attended the office of the 3rd respondent on 25.07.2014, in turn the surveyor of the office of the respondent has informed that in view of the work pressure, they have postponed the schedule and the date will be intimated later. After that a notice dated 29.12.2015 was received by the petitioner on 03.01.2016, wherein the petitioner was directed to attend the office on 28.12.2015, to proceed for survey and inspection along with the officials of the concerned RDOs. The petitioner approached the office of the 3rd respondent immediately i.e., on 05.01.2016, and brought the same to the notice of the respondent. On that, 3rd respondent looked into the matter and found that there is a mistake committed by their staff with regard to the dates and the petitioner was informed that she will be given a notice after fixing a different date. Later the petitioner did not receive any notice, therefore, approached the 3rd respondent office several times for issuance of notice and for conducting survey. As no action is taken, the petitioner made a representation on 25.11.2016 to the 3rd respondent, bringing to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner was in granite industry business for the last three years in the name of M/s.Bhavitha Granites (Polishing Unit), taken on lease for eight years from P.Sulochana and also processing required machinery such as (02) Numbers, TATA Hitachi EX 200 ILC Hydraulic Excavator worth Rs.1 crore and the petitioner’s husband, B.Dasarathram Reddy also possess granite polish unit in the name of Sri Venkat Granites and he is also owning required machinery. In view of the above representation, the respondent herein has informed the petitioner that a date will be given for calling for survey and inspection, but the petitioner subsequently came to know that the respondent has considered and forwarded the application 4th received from the third parties i..e respondent herein, overlapping the area applied by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner made a representation on 26.11.2016 to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 03.07.2014 and the same is most essential for the petitioner as an established entrepreneur and the mineral granite would be the captive source for the Unit. Hence the petitioner made a representation on 26.11.2016 to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 03.07.2014 and the same is most essential for the petitioner as an established entrepreneur and the mineral granite would be the captive source for the Unit. Despite the receipt of the said representation, the respondent not considered the same, even threatened the petitioner to withdraw the application stating that no survey would be conducted on her application. As no action was taken on the applications filed by the 3rd petitioner and subsequent applications being processed by the respondent, the petitioner represented the same before the Director of Mines and Geology/2ndrespondent, through a letter dated 26.11.2016. 5. Subsequently to the surprise of the petitioner, she has received a notice from the Joint Director of Mines and Geology, vide proceedings dated 07.12.2016, received by the petitioner on 26.12.2016, that the 3rd respondent has recommended for rejection of quarry lease application of the petitioner, on the ground that the applicant failed to attend the survey and inspection on the two chances given on 25.07.2014 and 31.12.2015, and why the application should not be rejected. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 04.11.2017, requesting the authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 26.11.2016 and explanation submitted not to drop the proceedings. 6. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, by memo dated 10.02.2017 forwarded the reply submitted by the petitioner and instructed the 3rd respondent to submit the remarks in the matter immediately. Pursuant to that the petitioner has received notice on 16.09.2017 from the 3rd respondent that the quarry lease application was received on 04.07.2014 along with application fee Rs.7500/-, therefore, to deposit deficit amounts of Rs.5000/-and deposit amount of Rs.45,000/-. After receipt of said notice, the said amounts were deposited vide challan dated 24.10.2017. 7. While the petitioner is waiting for holding survey and grant of quarry lease, surprisingly she has received Caveat registered by the 4th respondent on 06.07.2018 that on their application dated 09.08.2016, the 2nd respondent has passed orders in Notice dated 29.06.2018, proposing to grant quarry lease for 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 and 338 of Pulletipally village, C.K.Pally Mandal, and has called for submission of mining plan. 8. 8. The 2nd respondent has requested the Government for considering the application of the 4th respondent duly over-looking the prior applications since the applicant is having existing mineral based industry for granite, cutting and polishing subject to the satisfaction of the rules and regulations. On such recommendation, the Government in Memo No.11723/M.II(1)/2017, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 21.05.2018 decided to consider the proposal of 2nd respondent, and accorded permission to the Director of Mines and Geology to take necessary action to grant quarry lease to the 4th respondent by over-looking priority under Rule 12 (5) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules [for short APMMC Rules], 1966. 9. The petitioner further submitted that the applications of the petitioner are also captive purpose only and the petitioner owning mineral based industry, represented the same vide her representation dated 25.11.2016, hence, the recommendation of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and due to influence. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that she has received only one notice on 29.12.2015 asking the petitioner to attend for survey on 28.12.2015 for holding of a survey on 31.12.2015, which was received by her on 03.01.2016. She has not received any further notice, hence, the recommendations for rejection on the ground of non-attending the survey and inspection, is baseless and no recommendation can be made in favour of the 4th respondent for over-looking the priority. Even for recommendation of the overlooking priority, they have to issue notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the alleged notice issued to the petitioner is defective one, hence, she has submitted explanation, then only the petitioner was asked to submit the deferential application fee and to deposit, as per the Rules, which the petitioner was deposited. 11. It is further submitted that the Tahsildar, concerned has issued NOC, dated 13.11.2015 declaring the classification and availability of the land over the subject area, on the subsequent application filed by one Ashtaq Hussain. On receipt of the NOC to the subject land by the 3rd respondent, all the applications need to be considered with regard to the said survey numbers for grant of quarry lease as per Rule 12(5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. It is not in dispute that once, no objection certificate has received from concerned officer, all the applications pertaining to the said subject land has to be considered. It is not in dispute that once, no objection certificate has received from concerned officer, all the applications pertaining to the said subject land has to be considered. Hence, the recommendations and also notice for rejection of the petitioner’s application is bad in law. 12. The 3rd respondent has filed counter on behalf of the other respondents, denying all the allegations made in their affidavit. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department vide memo No.11723/M.II(1)/2017, dated 21.05.2018 issued orders in favour of M/s.Tara Granites by giving over look priority under rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, over (5) prior applications for captive purpose only on the ground that the applicant is having mineral based industry. Hence, the grant of quarry lease in favour of the 4threspondent is in accordance with rule and the allegations made in the writ petition are not correct. After receipt of the applications filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has requested the applicant to attend survey and inspection on 25.07.2014 and 31.12.2015 vide letters, dated 14.07.2014 and 29.12.2015 and the applicant/petitioner failed to attend the survey and inspection. The applicant has paid the difference of application fee and security deposit for three applications and remaining two applications are not paid. 13. Further submitted that even though the petitioner was served notices on 07.12.2016 to submit reply why the application of the petitioner should not be rejected on the ground that she has not cooperated to attend survey and inspection on two occasions, reply to the said notice, the petitioner has stated that she has already submitted a report to the Director of Mines and Geology, through letter dated 26.11.2016. 14. In the counter, they have further stated that the consideration of the application of the 4th respondent, by giving over-looking priority under Rule 12(5) (b) of APMMC Rules, over the (5) prior applications for captive purpose only on the ground that the 4th respondent is having mineral based industry. Hence, the same was considered under the captive purpose. 15. In fact in the petitioner’s representation dated 25.11.2016, that her husband Sri B.Dasaratha Rami Reddy is possessing granite unit in the name of M/s.Venkat Granites, which has been taken for lease from E. Lalitha Devi, W/o.E.Venkata Subbaiah, D.No.1-619-9-2, near CPI Colony, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District for 9 years upto to 14.09.2023. Hence, it clearly indicates that the petitioner is not having own industry. Hence, it clearly indicates that the petitioner is not having own industry. Accordingly, the allegation of the petitioner in the affidavit is not correct. 16. For the above said reasons, the orders passed by the Government granting license in favour of the 4threspondent is in accordance with Rules and in view of the same, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 17. After notice, the 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition, and mainly contending that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that the 1strespondent has granted quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 3.000 Hectares, in Sy.No.323, 338 of Puletipalli Village, C.K.Palli Mandal, Ananthapur District for a period of 20 years under ‘Captive Mining’ is in the interest of the Government revenue and encouragement of Industries under Rule 12(5)(b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. 18. It is submitted that 4th respondent is in the business of mining and manufacturing of polished granite and has its principal 4th place of business in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent has established its business in the year 2000 and provides employment to more than 100 workmen, and invested huge amounts in the field of manufacturing granite slabs, marble and other minerals. Due to increase in the cost of the raw materials and transportation, and with a view to further expand its business, they made an application for quarry lease under APMMC Rules, 1966 for ‘Captive Mining’ of Black Granite over the subject land, by paying requisite fee as prescribed under APMMC Rules, 1966. 19. Further contended that the petitioner filed an application on 26.06.2014 to the 3rd respondent for grant of mining lease and black granite without paying requisite fee as prescribed under APMMC Rules, 1966. It is not in dispute that the application made by the petitioner in the year 2014 was still pending for survey and inspection. But the application made by the 4th respondent on 06.08.2016 was surveyed and NOC was also granted in their favour. It is not in dispute that the application made by the petitioner in the year 2014 was still pending for survey and inspection. But the application made by the 4th respondent on 06.08.2016 was surveyed and NOC was also granted in their favour. This itself shows the intention of the petitioner in filing of such application without going through survey and applying for NOC is only to block the area of mining in the state of Andhra Pradesh, which is causing huge loss of royalty to the state of Andhra Pradesh and is restricting the genuine applicants like the answering respondent. 20. The 4th respondent further submitted in their counter that the application made by the petitioner for mining lease of black granite, is not the 1stapplication made for such mining in the state of Andhra Pradesh as the petitioner has made 17 similar applications for mining ‘Black Granite’ in various survey numbers, in the district of Ananthapuramu in the year 2014 itself, and so far the land is not surveyed and in those applications, the difference amounts is not yet paid by the petitioner. It is also submitted that M/s.Sri Shirdi Sai Granites which is under the proprietorship of the petitioner has also submitted 7 applications for mining of Black Granite in the District of Kurnool, which are still pending for survey. 21. The petitioner has sought the information under Right to Information Act [RTI] 2005 before the 3rd respondent regarding the pending applications of the petitioner. According to information furnished by the authority, it clearly shows that the petitioner has made 7 applications in the district of Kurnool, which are still pending for survey, out of which, NOC was received only in 2 applications and the remaining 5 applications made by the petitioner are still pending and as far as the Ananthapuramu District is concerned, they have filed 17 applications, which are still pending for survey and deficit amounts were also not paid by the petitioner. The said action of the petitioner indicates, by filing application and without processing the same, the petitioner is blocking the mining area and to deny opportunity to the eligible persons. 22. The said action of the petitioner indicates, by filing application and without processing the same, the petitioner is blocking the mining area and to deny opportunity to the eligible persons. 22. The 4th respondent further stated that in the application filed by the petitioner, Column No.XVIII specify the purpose of the 4th application as ‘Sale and Export All Globe’, whereas the respondent has submitted a request to the 2nd respondent, to consider their application for mining black granite with Captive Mining. Hence, as per the application filed by the 4th respondent, the same was considered under the Captive Mining and the 3rd respondent has issued letter to the 2ndrespondent for considering the application of granting the quarry lease to the answering respondent for a period of 20 years under Captive Mining. 23. The application made by the 4th respondent, and also the representation made by her, the 2nd respondent has considered the application for grant of quarry lease for black granite under Captive Mining as per Column No.XVIII of the application. But the petitioner has made 5 applications, as intentionally to block the area, without taking steps to get NOC, which is Mandatory under Rule 12(5) (d) of APMMC Rules, 1966. 24. In view of the above, considering the application as well as the NOC granted by the authorities and the investments made by the answering respondent, the 2nd respondent has recommended the application of the 4th respondent to grant lease in the subject area under the caption of Captive Mining and considering the same the 1strespondent has granted mining operations, in their proceedings, 11723/M.II(1)/2017, dated 21.05.2018. 25. Basing on the above pleadings, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.Sobha has argued that the impugned order, dated 21.05.2018 is contrary to the Rules, particularly Rule 12(5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966, though the petitioner has made an application in the month of 2014, overlooking the priority the authorities have considered the applications made by the 4th respondent, who is the 7th applicant, in the month of August’ 2016, is against the Rules as well as the law decided by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in various judgments. 26. Further she has contended that as averred in the impugned order, despite the notices issued to the petitioner, she has not attended for inspection, is not correct. 26. Further she has contended that as averred in the impugned order, despite the notices issued to the petitioner, she has not attended for inspection, is not correct. The petitioner has made three applications on 26.06.2014 and the same were received by 3rd respondent on 27.06.2014, but the petitioner has not pressed the said applications. Subsequently, she has filed another two applications on 03.07.2014 which was received by the 3rd respondent on 04.07.2014. In fact, after submitting the 2nd application, though the petitioner received a phone call to attend joint inspection scheduled on 25.07.2014, the same was not taken place, subsequently the petitioner has received another notice dated 29.12.2015, on 03.01.2016. According to the said notice, the petitioner was directed to attend the office, on 28.12.2015, for the survey and inspection to be held on 31.12.2015. Thus it is very clear that the notice, dated 29.12.2015, for the inspection scheduled to be held on 31.12.2015, was received by the petitioner 03.01.2016. Hence, consequent to the application made by the petitioner on 03.07.2014, she has not received any communication/proper communication from the respondent authorities, for inspection. 27. Further argued that, the respondents in the impugned order stated that in view of the non-cooperation of the petitioner for inspection and survey of the subject land, the authorities have issued notice for rejection of applications on 07.12.2016, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to attend the survey on inspection on 25.07.2014 and 31.12.2015 and not getting the NOC from the revenue department, is baseless. 28. In fact, after receipt of the notice dated 29.12.2015, on 03.01.2016, she has submitted her explanation on 25.11.2016, by a letter to the 3rd respondent, bringing about the discrepancies in the notice, but without considering the said representation, the Joint Director has issued show cause notice dated 07.12.2016 for rejection of the applications of the petitioner. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted explanation to the 2nd respondent on 04.01.2017. Further learned counsel argued that to the above said land, already the 3rd respondent/Assistant Director has received NOC from some other applicants. In view of the receipt of NOC pertaining to the subject land, there is no need to get another NOC, hence, the NOC received by the 3rdrespondent, is applicable to all the applications. Further learned counsel argued that to the above said land, already the 3rd respondent/Assistant Director has received NOC from some other applicants. In view of the receipt of NOC pertaining to the subject land, there is no need to get another NOC, hence, the NOC received by the 3rdrespondent, is applicable to all the applications. Hence, the proposal for rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground that non-submission of NOC is not available to the respondents. 29. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that in the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25.11.2016, she has submitted that the petitioner is in granite business since last 3 years, and they have taken lease on M/s.Bhavita Granites for a period of 8 years, valid up to 17.11.2022 and also the petitioner is possessing two numbers of TATA Hitachi EX 200 ILC Hydraulic Excavator worth more than a crore, and that husband of the petitioner is possessing granite polishing unit in the name of M/s.Venkat Granites, which has been taken for lease from E.Lalitha Devi, W/o.E.Venkata Subbaiah, which is valid upto 14.09.2023. In view of the same, requested to consider the application of the petitioner as first applicant and the same is most essential for running the granite units and also requested to consider the applications under captive business. Despite representation made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have considered the application made by the 7th applicant/i.e. 4th respondent, under Rule 12(5) (b) of APMMC Rules for captive purpose, therefore, it is against the ratio laid down by the common High Court of Judicature. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in an identical situation, the High Court, in Ch.V.Girish Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2011 (1) ALD 1 has considered and held as follows: “10. In the light of the afore said Rule, it is clear that the applications for grant of mining lease for granite shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. Further, as per the proviso, the Director of Mines and Geology is empowered to grant prospecting licence or quarry lease to applicant whose application is received later, in preference to an earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Further, as per the proviso, the Director of Mines and Geology is empowered to grant prospecting licence or quarry lease to applicant whose application is received later, in preference to an earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Under the Scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 consent of the local Gram Panchayat for grant of lease to a particular applicant is alien to the Rules. Even with regard to poramboke land, which vests with the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat may have a limited say, but there cannot be any authority or power vested in the Gram Panchayat under the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the Rules made thereunder to recommend for grant of lease in favour of a particular individual applicant on the ground that, that particular individual is local and others are not. Special reasons which are required to be recorded in writing by the Government to approve the proposals of the Director of Mines and Geology as contemplated under Rule 12 (5) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 to overlook the priority applications should be valid and sound reasons, in furtherance of the object and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. Any reason which runs contrary to the provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be considered as special reason within the meaning of the aforesaid proviso, to enable the Government to approve the proposals of the Director of Mines and Geology, for overlooking priority of applications. From a perusal of the impugned order and also the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, it is clear that the application of the petitioner is at the earliest point of time and in view of Rule 12 (5) (b) of the Rules, the Director of Mines and Geology has to dispose of the applications in the order of their receipt. The reason, namely that the petitioner is a non-local is an irrelevant reasons which runs contrary to the restriction imposed under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The reason, namely that the petitioner is a non-local is an irrelevant reasons which runs contrary to the restriction imposed under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. When the provision in the substantive legislation restricts the State Government to grant mining lease to Indian Nationals, it is not open to the State Government to make a distinction between the applicants of the district, where the land which is the subject-matter of the applications is located and the applicants outside that district. Such distinction is not only illegal and arbitrary but also runs contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 apart from infraction of equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The averments made in the counter-affidavit that the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution to the effect that a local will understand the problems of the Grampancyat well, and it is the interest of the Gram Panchayat to allow only locals to exploit the mineral in the local area of the Gram Panchayat, appears to be illogical and runs contrary to the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. Though learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Government and advanced arguments on the ground of legitimate expectancy, but, I do not find any substance in such arguments, as the Rules provide for disposal of the applications on first-come-first-serve basis. Undisputedly, the applications of the respondents 6 to 8 are later in point of time to that of the application of petitioner and the reasons recorded in impugned order are no reasons in the eye of law. ” 31. In view of the ratio decided by the above judgment, it made clear that the applications are to be considered and disposed of on first-come-first-serve basis. Undisputedly herein the applications made by the 4threspondent is later that of the petitioner’s application. 32. Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 reads as follows: “(b) The application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. for granite and marble shall be disposed off by the Director in the order of their receipt. Undisputedly herein the applications made by the 4threspondent is later that of the petitioner’s application. 32. Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 reads as follows: “(b) The application for grant of P.L. or Q.L. for granite and marble shall be disposed off 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: Provided that the Director may grant a P.L. or Q.L. to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided further that where a prospecting licence has been granted in respect of any land the Licensee shall have preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of that land over any other person in case he has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and submitted a prospecting report in respect of such land and submitted quarry lease application within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period and such right can be exercised only once over the entire prospected area.” 33. Thus, as per Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 it is clear that the application made for grant of P.L. or Q.L. shall be disposed off by the Director in the order of their receipt, provided that the Director may grant a license to an applicant whose application is received later, in preference to earlier application with the prior approval of the Government for any special reasons to be recorded in writing: 34. In the above said case, the application of the respondent was considered by the authorities on the ground that they are local and consent was also granted by the local Gram Panchayat in their favour. Considering the said consent, the authorities have passed order under the provisions, Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and such consideration is contrary to the rules, hence, the same is held illegal. Even in the instant case, the authorities have not specified any reasons for considering the 7thapplicant’s application on priority basis. 35. Further the learned counsel has contended that the Principal Secretary to the Government has given permission to the recommendations made by the Director, who is the very same person. Even in the instant case, the authorities have not specified any reasons for considering the 7thapplicant’s application on priority basis. 35. Further the learned counsel has contended that the Principal Secretary to the Government has given permission to the recommendations made by the Director, who is the very same person. Hence, the orders are vitiated. 36. In view of the above, the impugned order, which was passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, on 21.05.2018 and consequential orders issued by the Director on 29.06.2018 are liable to be set aside, thereby requested to consider the applications dated 03.07.2014 made by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease. 37. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that she has made three applications for grant of quarry lease, on 26.06.2014 and two applications on 03.07.2014 in Sy.Nos.323 and 338 of Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, after receipt of the applications, the authorities have issued notices twice and the two notices were received by the petitioner, on 25.07.2014 and on 31.12.2015 and she has failed to attend the survey and inspection. 38. Learned Government Pleader has categorically stated that the petitioner has made application on 26.06.2014, but she has not shown any interest to get it surveyed and to get No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the concerned revenue officers, for processing the applications made by her. 39. Apart from that she has not shown any interest to conduct survey and to get NOC from the Revenue officials with regard to the subject land for processing the applications. Even according to the averments in the writ petition, it is admitted that she has received a phone call on 23.07.2014 and there is no dispute that the receipt of the notices by her on 25.07.2014 and 31.12.2015. Even according to the averments, she has received notice dated 29.12.2015 on 03.01.2016. Though she has pointed out certain discrepancies, the same was not brought to the notice of the authorities, and she has not inclined to give any explanation to the said notices. She has filed an application and kept quiet for a long time. In view of the same, the Joint Director has issued notices to reject the applications made by the petitioner under Rule 12 (5) (b) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, on 07.12.2016. 40. She has filed an application and kept quiet for a long time. In view of the same, the Joint Director has issued notices to reject the applications made by the petitioner under Rule 12 (5) (b) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, on 07.12.2016. 40. After receipt of the said notices, she has replied stating that she has already submitted representation to the Director of Mines and Geology, on 26.11.2016 and not inclined to submit any explanation to the notices issued for rejection applications under Rule 12 (5) (b) of the APMMC Rules, 1966. In fact the petitioner has not paid the application fee as per rules and after the notice, she has paid the differential fee only with regard to two applications and for the remaining other applications, she has not paid the differential fee also. In view of the same, the authorities have considered the application of the 7thapplicant/4th respondent only on the ground that the 7thapplicant/4th respondent is having Granite Industry and she has filed an application under captive management. Hence, the same was considered under Section 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Hence, the impugned orders are in accordance with rules. 41. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, has submitted that the petitioner is an established industrialist and she has a manufacturing polishing Granite Industry in Andhra Pradesh and established the business in the year 2000 i.e., more than 100 workers are working under them, hence she made application for Black Granite, over an extent of 3 hectares in 323 and 338 of Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, under captive mining. The son of the 4th respondent has also filed an application for quarry lease for the very same area, on 24.08.2015, immediately after making an application by the son of the petitioner, they have cooperated for completion of survey and inspection and they got no objection certificate from the revenue authorities, and the same are submitted to the 3rd respondent in time. Subsequently, son of the 4th respondent, has withdrawn the application dated 24.08.2015 on 09.08.2016 on technical reasons. 42. Subsequently, son of the 4th respondent, has withdrawn the application dated 24.08.2015 on 09.08.2016 on technical reasons. 42. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has pointed out that Column No.XVIII of the application field by the petitioner, clearly indicates the application is filed for ‘Sale and Export All Globe’, whereas the applications of the 4th respondent indicates that mining is for own purpose and it is for local factory. Column no.16 clearly indicates that the unofficial respondent has filed an application under captive mining. In comparison of the applications made by the petitioner as well as the 4threspondent, it clearly demarcates that the petitioner has filed an application for sale of mining. As far as the 4th respondent is concerned their application clearly indicating that it is filed on captive mining. 43. Apart from the above, though the petitioner has received two notices, even according to the averments in the writ petition, she has received 2ndnotice on 03.01.2016, but she has not submitted any reply to the said notice, only after knowing the application made by the 4th respondent, she has submitted her representation to the 3rd respondent on 25.11.2016. That itself shows that the petitioner has not interested to process her application independently, only to block the area she has made an application and kept quiet for a long time and only after came to know about the application made by the 4threspondent, she has started pursuing the matter. First time, in her representation dated 25.11.2016, she has brought to the notice of the authorities, that they have taken lease of one Granite Industry for 8 years, which is valid up to 17.11.2022 and requested the authorities to consider her case under captive mining. Replying to the other contentions, the ground raised by the petitioner counsel that NOC issued by the revenue authorities pertaining to the subject land applies to all the applications, is not a valid ground. In fact, the Tahsildar has conducted survey, as per the application made by the son of the petitioner, as per the sketch filed along with the said application, and issued NOC. Hence, the NOC issued to a particular land as per the sketch made along with the application, is only applicable to the sketch attached along with the application and the same cannot be applied to other areas. 44. Hence, the NOC issued to a particular land as per the sketch made along with the application, is only applicable to the sketch attached along with the application and the same cannot be applied to other areas. 44. Once the application is made for mining of a particular area, along with the application, one should have to submit a sketch and the survey has to be done according to the sketch, to get NOC from the revenue authorities. Hence, the above contention of the writ petitioner is not sustainable. 45. Further learned counsel, Sri Gunaranjan appearing for the 4th respondent, contended that they have made application under RTI to the 3rdrespondent as well as the Assistant Director of Mines Geology, Kurnool. Accordingly, to the information furnished by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool the petitioner and her husband have filed 7 applications, only for two applications they have submitted NOC and the remaining applications are pending for inspection. 46. According to the information, furnished by the 4th respondent there are 17 applications pending for pertaining to Ananthapuramu District. In the said applications, neither survey is conducted nor NOC is submitted, and all the 17 applications are pending. This clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are making applications for large extent and kept quite by blocking entire area. 47. Learned counsel further contended that the 4th respondent has made an application on 06.08.2016 for black granite quarry lease, for 3 hectares, in Survey Nos.323 and 338 Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District mainly for the factory of the 4th respondent, because the said quarry is located in Ananthapuramu and due to shortage of raw material, the petitioner has made an application to go for captive mining and accordingly the same was applied. With a request to consider their application under captive purpose, the 4th respondent has processed the application after payment of entire fees and charges as per the Rules, completed the inspection and submitted the NOC. Considering the same, the authorities have issued proceedings under Rules 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules. 48. Learned counsel further submitted that grant of lease is only subject to the condition of the provisions of the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, which clarifies that in general, the applications has to be disposed of by the Director in order of their receipt, but there is relaxation provided in the said rules. 48. Learned counsel further submitted that grant of lease is only subject to the condition of the provisions of the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, which clarifies that in general, the applications has to be disposed of by the Director in order of their receipt, but there is relaxation provided in the said rules. The Director may grant lease in favour of the applications received later in preference to the earlier application with the prior approval of the Government in any special reasons to be recorded in writing. 49. In view of the relaxation given under Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, the Director has to send proposals to the Government, by recording special reasons, considering the application under captive mining and also considering that the 4th respondent is having mineral based industry, issued impugned proceedings on 21.05.2018. 50. In view of the permission granted by the Government, the 2nd respondent, who is a competent authority considered and issued proceedings as per Rules, on 29.06.2018, more particularly as per rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. 51. Learned counsel further stated that in fact the 3rdrespondent has issued notices for inspection of the land subsequent to the impugned proceedings, shows with regard to the some other applications. That itself shows that the applicants are interested they can pursue their applications by cooperating the authorities for inspection and submitting NOCs. 52. Finally the learned counsel has stated that the judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. Where the subject matter in the above said judgment that the applications of the unofficial respondent were considered, on the basis of consent given by the local bodies. Where the Court has held that no such requirement of consent from the local bodies are required, hence that cannot be considered as an exemption under Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC, Rules 1966. Accordingly, the same were set aside. 53. But the instant case is entirely different. Here the application made by the petitioner is for sale, whereas the application made by the 4th respondent is on captive mining basis, but it is not in dispute that the 4th respondent has established mining based industry in Ananthapuramu district and she has also made an application under captive mining. 53. But the instant case is entirely different. Here the application made by the petitioner is for sale, whereas the application made by the 4th respondent is on captive mining basis, but it is not in dispute that the 4th respondent has established mining based industry in Ananthapuramu district and she has also made an application under captive mining. Hence, the consideration of the application made by the petitioner under rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 is in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the judgment relied by the petitioner counsel is not applicable to the present case. 54. Though learned counsel for the petitioner made her submissions that the petitioner has not received notices issued by the respondents for inspection and submission of NOC, but the issue involved in this writ petition is that whether the impugned order was passed in consonance with Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 or not. Hence, the other factual aspects about the issuance of the notice to the petitioner and NOC granted to the subject land for others is also applicable to the petitioner’s application or not, are not relevant for the present case. 55. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 provides relaxation to the authorities to consider applications on the priority basis, by recording any special reasons. The objective of exercising power under Proviso to the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 should be to aid development of minerals. In the absence of any provision under the mining rules for grant of relaxation, said relaxation can be contended to be unsustainable in law. A mere filing of an application for grant of lease does not confer a vested right for grant of lease. The statutory provision of Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 is in the nature of a relaxation rule in special cases. The idea, thus, is that the objective of exercising such power should be aid the development of minerals. 56. Taking the facts into consideration, the 1st respondent has rightly exercised its powers under proviso to Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. The idea, thus, is that the objective of exercising such power should be aid the development of minerals. 56. Taking the facts into consideration, the 1st respondent has rightly exercised its powers under proviso to Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Hence, the impugned order, dated 21.05.2018 passed by the authorities on the basis of application made by the 4th respondent under captive mining is in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. In view of the above findings, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. 57. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed and the interim order granted on 17.08.2018 shall stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.