ORDER : Petitioner implores for writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Memo No.4054989/D11-ATP/2020, dated 30.11.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant quarry lease for road metal and stone in an extent of 3.270 hectares in Sy.No.393/P of Siddarampuram Village, B K Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District to the petitioner and pass such other orders. 2. Petitioner’s case briefly is that petitioner submitted application dated 10.05.2018 to the 4th respondent for grant of quarry lease for road metal in respect of the property submitted supra. The 4th respondent submitted proposals on 29.04.2019 recommending for grant of quarry lease. After receipt of the said proposals, the 3rd respondent issued letter of intent in favour of the petitioner subject to the approval of the mining plan along with consent for establishment by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forests as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 and directed the petitioner to submit the aforesaid clearances within a period of six months. On 12.08.2020 the petitioner submitted approved Mining Plan along with consent for establishment issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and requested the 3rd respondent to grant lease in his favour. The 3rd respondent seems to have returned the proposals to the 4th respondent to resubmit the proposals duly rectifying omissions with specific recommendation over the subject area. Subsequently the 4th respondent has resubmitted the proposals with the rectification stating that earlier the 4th respondent has issued demand notice to G. Deva Chandra Reddy for seigniorage fee and later the second demand notice dated 17.06.2019 was issued. The petitioner came to know that on the ground that the said G. Deva Chandra Reddy is the son of the petitioner and he allegedly owed amounts towards seigniorage fee to the department, the respondents are not considering the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease. Their act is contrary to Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules, 1966”). The application of the petitioner can be rejected under law only if he fails to attend the inspection, survey or submit valid mineral revenue clearance certificates. Their act is contrary to Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules, 1966”). The application of the petitioner can be rejected under law only if he fails to attend the inspection, survey or submit valid mineral revenue clearance certificates. However, rejecting his application on the ground that petitioner’s son fell in arrears of seigniorage fee, is contrary to law. The dues of his son cannot be fastened on the petitioner and the rules do not permit such arbitrary action on the part of the authorities. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus: (a) The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 3.270 hectares in Sy.No.393/P of Siddarampuram Village, B K Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District for a period of 10 years and Tahsildar, B.K. Samudram was requested to submit his report. The Tahsildar issued No Objection Certificate dated 13.06.2018 and recommended for grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the then technical assistant and surveyor have inspected and surveyed the site and submitted their reports. During the survey they noticed 3 worked pits were operated by the then lease holder G. Deva Chandra Reddy, son of the present applicant and his lease was determined and those pits situate in the eastern side area and covered in the present survey. (b) The office records would show that in the applied area previously quarry lease was granted by the 3rd respondent herein in favour of G. Deva Chandra Reddy vide proceedings dated 23.09.2008 and the lease would be in force up to 23.09.2018. However, the lease was determined by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.816/QL/2008, dated 17.03.2015 as the said lessee failed to pay advance dead rent since 2013-14 and not rectified other breaches. The then Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued demand notice to the lessee vide proceedings in 975/V&E/RM/2013 dated 14.03.2014 to pay normal seigniorage fee of Rs.7,50,850/-along with five times penalty. The lessee accordingly paid the normal seigniorage fee vide Challan No.20008986772018, dated 07.06.2018. The above is the previous history of the site sought for lease now. The 3rd respondent informed all these facts to the 2nd respondent in connection with the application of the writ petitioner. The lessee accordingly paid the normal seigniorage fee vide Challan No.20008986772018, dated 07.06.2018. The above is the previous history of the site sought for lease now. The 3rd respondent informed all these facts to the 2nd respondent in connection with the application of the writ petitioner. After verification of the proposals, the 3rd respondent issued letter of intent to the petitioner vide notice No.247/RM/QL/2019, dated 03.05.2019 requesting to submit the approved mining plan, environmental clearance and consent for establishment within six months. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.08.2020 submitted approved mining plan, environmental clearance and consent for establishment and requested the 3rd respondent for grant of quarry lease in his favour. However, the 3rd respondent returned file for resubmission by noting the following lapses: (a) G. Deva Chandra Reddy filed appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam against the determination orders of his lease vide proceedings No.816/QL/2008, dated 17.03.2015 and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has not received any final orders in the appeal. (b) During the survey, the surveyor reported to have found 3 existing pits with certain dimensions which were conducted by G. Deva Chandra Reddy. The office of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has issued notice dated 18.04.2019 to G. Deva Chandra Reddy for the quantity of 48,375 Cu.M., which was excavated unauthorizedly. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology not reported about the demand notice. Hence, the justification shall be furnished. (c) The applicant informed in the affidavit dated 10.05.2018 that he is having quarry lease for road metal, building stone over an extent of 3.270 hectares in Sy.No.393/P of Siddarampuram Village, B K Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District and in that connection valid mineral dues, clearance certificate shall be furnished by the applicant. (d) Fresh inspection along with photographs of the recommended area shall be furnished. Basing on the above instructions of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent resubmitted proposals by duly rectifying the above lapses. (d) Fresh inspection along with photographs of the recommended area shall be furnished. Basing on the above instructions of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent resubmitted proposals by duly rectifying the above lapses. After receiving the proposals, 3rd the respondent vide letter dated 20.11.2020 requested the 2nd respondent for clarification whether to grant quarry lease over an extent of 3.270 hectares in Sy.No.393/P of Siddarampuram Village, B K Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District in favour of the petitioner, who happens to be the father of G. Deva Chandra Reddy against whom a demand notice for an amount of Rs.2,79,41,750/-for transportation of road material without permits over the subject area was pending. On the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued instructions vide Memo No. 4054989/D11-ATP/2020, dated 30.11.2020 as follows: “After examination the proposals, the Dy. Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapuramu is directed to hold further proceeds on the quarry lease application dt. 08-05-2018 filed by Sri g. Obulesu Reddy in the subject area until the payment of demanded amount vide Asst. Director of Mines and Geology (Vg). Gooty’s Demand Notice No.975/V&E/RMQ/2013, dt. 14-03-2014 for Rs.45,05,100/-and Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapuramu’s Demand Notice No.816/Q3/RM/2008, dt.17-06-2019 for payment of Rs.2,41,87,500/-by the defaulting Son Sri G. Deva Chandra Reddy, S/o Sri G. Obulesu Reddy”. As per the above instruction of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.247/QL-ATP/2019 dated 04.01.2021 has returned the record of enquiry to the 4th respondent and directed to take necessary action for collection of demanded amounts from G. Deva Chandra Reddy. The 2nd respondent has issued impugned memo No.4054989/D11-ATP/2020, dated 30.11.2020 to hold further proceedings on the quarry lease application dated 08.05.2018 of the petitioner only in the interest of collection of mineral revenue dues to the Government exchequer and not with any ulterior motive. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. Manohar Reddy and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondents. 5. Severely fulminating the impugned Memo dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. Manohar Reddy would argue that keeping the lease application of the petitioner on hold by the Mining Authorities on the ground that petitioner’s son was allegedly fell due of amounts to the department is contrary to the provisions of APMMC Rules, 1966. He would submit that in the eye of law, a father and son are different entities and unless they are the partners of a same firm or directors of a same company which firm/company owes dues to department, the dues of one person cannot be counted against the other person to reject the application for granting of mining lease or any other benefit. He would submit that in the instant case the petitioner and his son are doing mining business independently and one has nothing to do with the other. Therefore, the department is not legally justified in keeping the application of the petitioner in abeyance on a lame excuse that his son is allegedly in due of amounts to the department. Petitioner is concerned, he applied for lease and submitted all permits to the department to its satisfaction and therefore, they have to consider his application without reference to the dues of his son even if such dues are true. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology would argue that the petitioner’s son G. Chandra Reddy was in due of Rs.3 crores and odd as he committed default in payment of seigniorage fee, dead rent and penalty in respect of his leasehold land and since father and son belong to joint family, the department kept the application of the petitioner in hold till the son discharges his dues. 7. On a conspectus facts and law, I am unable to countenance the arguments of learned Government Pleader. As rightly argued by the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner and his son are two different entities in the legal context. Therefore, the petitioner’s application cannot be kept in hold merely because his son fell in arrears of dead rent, seigniorage fee, penalty etc., to the mining department even if such claim is true. Learned Government Pleader could not show any provision in the APMMC Rules, 1966 or the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or any other law which empowers the department to keep in abeyance the mining lease application of a person on the ground that one of his relations, let us say, son, is due to the department. Learned Government Pleader could not show any provision in the APMMC Rules, 1966 or the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or any other law which empowers the department to keep in abeyance the mining lease application of a person on the ground that one of his relations, let us say, son, is due to the department. Such an act on the part of the department is permissible only when an applicant and his relation conducts a joint business i.e., if they are partners in a same firm or directors in the same company which owes amounts to the department under previous lease and one of the partners/directors applies for fresh lease under the guise of a separate entity. 8. In this context, it is beneficial to refer to Rule 12 of the APMMC Rules, 1966. This Rule specifically deals with grant of mining leases in respect of minor minerals, execution of license or lease deed, imposing the conditions of license of the lease and its lapse, transfer of leases, renewal of lease etc. aspects. Regarding the grant of lease, Rule 12(1) says that a quarry lease of any minor mineral, except Granite useful for cutting and polishing, and Marble and 31 minerals mentioned at Sl.No.18 to 48 in Schedule-1 of Rule 10, shall be granted subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2) & (3) by the Deputy Director on an application in Form-B made to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology concerned. Then proviso No.(d) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 is pertinent for our purpose as it discusses about when a Director shall reject the application for P.L. or Q.L. It reads thus: “(d) The Director shall reject the application for P.L. or Q.L. in the event of any default on the part of applicant, in attending the inspection and survey or submission of valid mineral revenue clearance certificate or any other material papers required by the Director.” Thus, as per the non-fulfilment of above conditions if any, the Director shall reject the application for P.L. or Q.L. i.e., in the event of any default on the part of the applicant such as applicant’s failure to attend the inspection and survey; failure to submit valid revenue clearance certificate; failure to submit any material papers required by the Director. A close perusal of this proviso would show that the rejection of the quarry lease application of an applicant shall be mainly due to any lapses as envisaged supra on the part of the applicant, but not others. Therefore, if a third-party, may be the relation of the applicant, fell in arrears of seigniorage fee or dead rent etc. to the department, that cannot be pitted against the eligibility conditions of the applicant to put on hold his application or rejecting the same. Law does not empower or permit the authorities to do so. Thus, on a conspectus of the facts and law, this Court cannot uphold the action of respondents in keeping the application of petitioner in abeyance for non-payment of dues by his son. Of course, they have right to keep the application of petitioner in hold or reject the same in the circumstances stated supra i.e., if the petitioner, who is the applicant, and his son belong to the Joint Hindu family and conduct their business(s) in the joint name and submit the income tax and business returns in the same name or if they are the partners of the same firm or the Directors of the same company, which firm or company owes revenue to the respondent Department, and suppressing the same the petitioner seeks mining lease in his individual name or for any other valid cause which is legally permissible. 9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Memo No.4054989/D11-ATP/2020 dated 30.11.2020 issued by 2nd respondent is set aside with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the quarry lease application of writ petitioner on its own merits and demerits by taking into consideration the observations made in this order, regarding the circumstances when the petitioner’s application can be rejected, and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with governing law and rules, but not later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.