Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 214 (AP)

K. v. B. Granites VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-02-22

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
ORDER : The challenge in this writ petition is to the revision order vide Memo No3248/M.I(1)/2020 dated 16.11.2020 passed by 1st respondent whereby and whereunder while dismissing the revision application, the rejection order vide proceedings No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Director of Mines & Geology / 2nd respondent on the petitioner’s lease application was confirmed. 2. The petitioner’s case is thus: (a) The petitioner applied for quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 4.5 hectares in Sy.No.6 situated in Eswarapuram Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District through a mining lease application dated 07.09.2010. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology/4th respondent forwarded his application to the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal/5th respondent on the same day for issuing NOC/Feasibility report. In spite of petitioner’s several requests the report was not submitted. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1148/2011 before the High Court of A.P. seeking a direction to 5th respondent. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.01.2011 with a direction to 5th respondent herein to send his report/recommendations in the matter directly to 4th respondent herein as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 28.05.1998 as expeditiously as possible. The further case of the petitioner is that after the above order the petitioner made several representations to 5th respondent but of no avail. (b) While so, in the meanwhile the 4th respondent instructed the petitioner to attend the inspection of the applied leased area and accordingly, on 25.03.2011 the petitioner met Surveyor and Inspecting Officer, who visited the area applied by the petitioner and conducted survey and inspection and instructed the petitioner to submit an affidavit of consent after issuance of NOC/report by 5th respondent. Subsequently also the petitioner made request to 5th respondent but he did not send the NOC. (c) While so, the petitioner received show cause notice No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 27.04.2013 sent by the Joint Director of Mines & Geology, A.P. stating as to why his quarry lease application shall not be rejected since the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal was not inclined to issue NOC in his favour even after lapse of 28 months. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.06.2013 narrating therein that there was no fault on his part and the 5th respondent has not so far issued NOC on one or other ground and requested to recall the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.06.2013 narrating therein that there was no fault on his part and the 5th respondent has not so far issued NOC on one or other ground and requested to recall the show cause notice. (d) Thereafter the petitioner was waiting with the hope that after receiving report his quarry lease application would be processed. Having so waited, on 16.10.2018 he approached authorities to know about the status of his application but to his surprise the 4th respondent informed him that his lease application was already rejected by the 2nd respondent / Director of Mines & Geology in the year 2016 itself vide proceedings No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 16.07.2016. Though he was informed that the copy of the proceedings were sent to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not receive. Hence, the petitioner obtained copy of the order of 2nd respondent through RTI application. On perusing the said order, the petitioner came to know that Director of Mines & Geology rejected his quarry lease application with observation as if the petitioner did not submit reply to the show cause notice which is factually incorrect, as the petitioner has submitted his reply on 03.06.2013 itself. Without considering the petitioner’s reply, the Director of Mines & Geology (2nd respondent) has unduly rejected his quarry lease application. Therefore, the petitioner filed revision before 1st respondent on 09.01.2019 challenging the order of 2nd respondent. However, the said revision petition was dismissed on 16.11.2020 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was not a speaking order. Hence, the writ petition challenging the revision order dated 16.11.2020. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 filed counter opposing the writ petition. It is admitted that the petitioner filed application for grant of quarry lease on 07.09.2010 and the 4th respondent addressed letter dated 07.09.2013 to furnish the report on classification and availability of the subject land for mining lease. It is further admitted that as per the order passed in W.P.No.1148/2011, the 5th respondent was directed to send his report/ recommendations in the matter directly to 4th respondent as per the G.O.Ms.No.181 expeditiously. (a) It is further stated that the technical staff of the office of 4th respondent have conducted inspection and survey in the subject area on 25.03.2011. It is further admitted that as per the order passed in W.P.No.1148/2011, the 5th respondent was directed to send his report/ recommendations in the matter directly to 4th respondent as per the G.O.Ms.No.181 expeditiously. (a) It is further stated that the technical staff of the office of 4th respondent have conducted inspection and survey in the subject area on 25.03.2011. Due to non-receipt of the report from the 5th respondent and also as per the instructions of the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad vide Memo No.53526/IA3/2012 dated 16.01.2013 that the mineral concession applications should not be kept pending for more than two months for want of NOC and in case NOC was not received, all the mineral concession applications shall be proposed for rejection, the 4th respondent vide File No.5620/Q/2010 dated 15.03.2013 submitted proposals for rejection of the petitioner’s application to the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad through the Zonal Joint Director, Kadapa. Based on the aforesaid rejection proposals, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice No.16199/R5- 1/2013 dated 27.04.2013 to the petitioner as to why his quarry lease application should not be rejected. However, the petitioner did not furnish any reply. Hence, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 16.07.2016 rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner. The said order was furnished to the petitioner when he filed RTI application. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner filed revision petition and the same was dismissed on 16.11.2020. (b) It is further submitted that as per the office records, eight applications were filed by different applicants for grant of quarry lease for colour granites in respect of the same survey number in same area and the 5th respondent issued NOC for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 47.00 Hectares in various survey numbers, as the survey number 06 block was split up and given new survey numbers. After receipt of no objection report from 5th respondent; 4th respondent submitted combined proposals to 2nd respondent for grant of quarry leases in favour of (1) M/s. Amaram Commodity Ventures, Prop: Sri T.Prabhas Kumar Reddy over an extent of 18.988 Hectares in Sy.No.379/2, 380, 381/2, 378/2 (Old Sy.No.6) & 6/P, (2) M/s. Amara Commodities, Prop: Smt. P. Prathyusha over an extent of 7.357 Hectares in Sy.No.388/1, 388/2, 387/3, 383 (Old Sy.No.6) & 6/P and (3) M/s Ushasri Commodity Ventures, Prop: Sri P. Amarnadha Reddy over an extent of 16.475 hectares in Sy.No.383, 384/4, 384/5, 385/7 (Old Sy.No.6) & 6/P of Eswarapuram (Vg), Puttur (M), Chittoor District. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus: (a) The 5th respondent denied that the 4th respondent forwarded the application of petitioner for issuing NOC and the petitioner met the 5th respondent in that regard and requested to issue the report. On verification of the office records, the 5th respondent did not receive any orders in W.P.No.1148/2011. Even after the disposal of W.P.No.1148/2011, the petitioner did not approach the Tahsildar Office, Puttur or informed about the orders. In fact, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued proceedings vide No.33948/Assn.1(1)/2012-1 dated 18.08.2012 directing that no NOC should be issued by the Tahsildars in respect of the licenses for mining lease and quarry lease purposes pending issue of further orders in the matter. It is further stated that as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Puttur, the total land in Sy.No.6 of Eswarapuram Village, Puttur Mandal, is Ac. 275.65 cents and classified as Gutta (Rock) as per Fair Adangal of the Village. Out of the total extent, an extent of Ac. 76.10 cents has been separated from the block by carving new survey numbers as 6-A, 255 to 265, 321, 323, 324 and 386 respectively for assignment for agricultural purpose to the landless poor. It appears, the status of the land on the ground is detailed below: Sl. No. Name of the Quarry Agency Extent (In hectares) Remarks 1. Pokarna Granite 6.00.0 Quarry running 2. Shirdisai Granite 4.00.0 " 3. Jayasankar 2.50.0 " 4. Patel Granite (Satheesh Kumar) 2.42.0 " 5. Granite Royal (Chittireddy) 6.13.0 Granted NOC for quarry lease 6. Satheesh Kumar 5.18.0 " 7. Vasudevareddy 2.30.0 " 8. Chaitanya Granite 1.50.0 " 9. Bhargava Krishna 4.50.0 " 10. Pokarna Granite 6.00.0 Quarry running 2. Shirdisai Granite 4.00.0 " 3. Jayasankar 2.50.0 " 4. Patel Granite (Satheesh Kumar) 2.42.0 " 5. Granite Royal (Chittireddy) 6.13.0 Granted NOC for quarry lease 6. Satheesh Kumar 5.18.0 " 7. Vasudevareddy 2.30.0 " 8. Chaitanya Granite 1.50.0 " 9. Bhargava Krishna 4.50.0 " 10. Ravichandran 10.47.5 " 11. Murugan Granite 5.00.0 " 12. Amarakamodity 9.40.0 " 13. Ushasri Kamodity 11.50.5 " 14. Amar Kamodity 0.13.5 " Total 71.04.5 (Hectares) (176.00 Acres) (b) It was further reported that an extent of Ac. 76.10 cents has been given as DKT pattas to the landless poor for agriculture purpose. Therefore, the total land under utilization is Ac. 252.10 cents (176.00 + 76.10) against the total extent of Ac. 275.65 cents leaving the balance extent of Ac. 23.55 cents which is uneven and certain area is under encroachments by the nearby ryots for agricultural purpose. (c) There was a ban for issuing NOC. However, it is false to contend that the petitioner was informed that NOC would be issued after lifting of the ban. It is false to state that the petitioner made continuous requests to the office of this respondent for issuance of report. As per the records, the petitioner did not submit any application to the office of 5th respondent. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. It should be noted this Court on 22.04.2021 passed an elaborate order directing the respondents not to issue any lease with regard to the subject land to any private parties. 6. Heard arguments of Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents 1 to 4; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing 5th respondent. 7. Severely remonstrating the impugned revision order dated 16.11.2020 of 1st respondent confirming the rejection of the petitioner’s lease application by the Director of Mines & Geology, learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ravi Kondaveeti vehemently argued that the petitioner was ultimately victimised due to inordinate delay in issuing NOC by 5th respondent in spite of petitioner’s sincere efforts to convince 5th respondent to send NOC in due time by making representations and also meeting him personally. (a) In expatiation, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted quarry lease application on 07.09.2010 to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology/4th respondent, who promptly forwarded the copy of application to 5th respondent on the same day for issuing NOC in terms of G.O.Ms.No.181. Thereafter, there was no response from 5th respondent in spite of petitioner making representations personally. Learned counsel would submit that 5th respondent used to assure sometimes that he would forward the NOC and sometimes stating that there was a ban imposed by the Government and hence, he cannot forward the NOC. Learned counsel would argue that if ban was in force as claimed by 5th respondent, he should have sent a letter to 4th respondent quoting the Government order or other provision of law through which the ban was imposed by the Government so as to enable the mining authorities to dispose of the petitioner’s lease application by following due process. However, without following the procedure, learned counsel lamented, the 5th respondent slumbered over the matter for the reasons best known to him and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.1148/2011 before the High Court of A.P., wherein the Court was pleased to pass an order directing the 5th respondent to send his report / recommendations in the matter directly to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Chittoor, in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.181 as expeditiously as possible. In spite of the said order, 5th respondent did not submit his report and ultimately the mining authorities issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his lease application should not be rejected for want of NOC. The petitioner submitted reply explaining that in the entire episode there was no fault of the petitioner and the 5th respondent did not forward the NOC without any plausible clause. Without considering the petitioner’s case in a proper perspective, the Director of Mines rejected the application of petitioner and the Revisional Authority also confirmed the said order in a casual manner. He thus argued that the impugned order is factually and legally unsustainable as it is against the canons of law and justice. 8. Learned Government Pleaders have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments and supported the impugned order. 9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 10. He thus argued that the impugned order is factually and legally unsustainable as it is against the canons of law and justice. 8. Learned Government Pleaders have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments and supported the impugned order. 9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 10. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the pleadings and submissions of both parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent who, under law is obligated to forward his Feasibility report-cum-NOC within specified time of 30 days, caused inordinate delay without any justifiable cause and in spite of the order in W.P.No.1148/2011, did not send the report to Mining Department. To extricate himself of his fault, for the first time in his counter he took the plea as if the ban imposed by the Government on issuance of NOCs was in force during the relevant period which is incorrect. (a) In the above context, I perused the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short, ‘the APMMC Rules, 1966’). The application in the instant case is submitted for grant of quarry lease for colour granite. As per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of the APMMC Rules, 1966, an application for quarry lease shall be submitted to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology in Form P. Each application shall be accompanied by a sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries, duly signed by the applicant and by a qualified surveyor enclosing treasury challan for requisite application fee. This rule further says that the deposit amount shall be refundable when the application is rejected on technical grounds like non-availability of the area, rejection of NOC. Therefore, this rule implies that the NOC is mandatory from the concerned Revenue Department if the land for which mining lease is sought for either belongs to Revenue Department or it holds an interest therein. Therefore, necessarily the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology has to forward mining lease application to the Tahsildar for issuing Feasibility report–cum–NOC. 11. In this regard, it is germane to peruse G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries & Commerce (Mines-1) Department, dated 28.05.1998 issued by the Government. This G.O. was issued to expedite the disposal of prospective license/mining lease and quarry lease applications. Therefore, necessarily the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology has to forward mining lease application to the Tahsildar for issuing Feasibility report–cum–NOC. 11. In this regard, it is germane to peruse G.O.Ms.No.181, Industries & Commerce (Mines-1) Department, dated 28.05.1998 issued by the Government. This G.O. was issued to expedite the disposal of prospective license/mining lease and quarry lease applications. This G.O. states that immediately after receiving the applications, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology shall acknowledge the receipt of application, fix a date for inspection and send one set of application to the M.R.O. concerned to report on the category of the land and availability of the land for grant of prospecting license / mining lease or quarry lease. Thereupon the M.R.O. will send his report to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology within a period of 30 days duly marking a copy of his report to the District Collector. The said report of the M.R.O. need not be routed through the intermediate level of Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector. This G.O. further says that if the District Collector is in agreement with the report of the M.R.O., he need not make any further report to the Director of Mines and Geology. However, if the District Collector disagrees with the recommendations of the M.R.O, he will send his recommendations to the Director of Mines & Geology within 30 days from the date of receipt of report from M.R.O. In case no report is received from the District Collector within 30 days, it will be deemed that the Collector has no objection in grant of prospecting license/mining lease/quarry lease. Thereupon the Assistant Director will submit his report along with recommendations of the M.R.O. to the Director of Mines & Geology within 15 days from the date of receipt of report from M.R.O. The Assistant Director shall send his recommendations directly to the Director of Mines & Geology without the necessity of routing the same through Regional Joint Director of Mines & Geology to save time. (a) The G.O. further says that in order to ensure that the officers at the field level i.e., Assistant Director of Mines and M.R.O. take action and send their reports within the stipulated time, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.220, Industries & Commerce (IP) Department dated 01.09.1997 to include Assistant Director of Mines & Geology of the District as a member of the District Industrial 10 Promotion Committee to review the pending prospecting license/mining lease applications. If there are delays in receipt of the report from the M.R.O, then the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology can bring such cases to the notice of the Collector at the monthly District Industrial Promotion Committee meeting. The District Collector will ensure that M.R.Os send their reports within the specified time. The G.O. speaks about the other measures to be taken to avoid delay in processing the prospecting license/mining lease/quarry lease applications. 12. Thus, a careful scrutiny of the above G.O. would show that its avowed object is to process the quarry lease applications by minimizing the delays. In that context, the concerned Assistant Directors of Mines and M.R.Os are obligated to act swiftly in terms of the G.O. The Assistant Director, immediately after receipt of the mining lease application, shall forward one set of the application to the M.R.O. concerned to give his report on the category of land and its availability for grant of mining lease etc. which is otherwise called as NOC. In Maruthi Granites v. Collector and District Magistrate, MANU/AP/0215/2005 : 2005 (4) ALT 297 a learned Judge of the High Court of A.P. while speaking on the purpose in calling for the NOC, has observed that the purpose of NOC is to find out if the Government have any claim over the land over which the lease is sought for or if there are any dues to the Government in respect of the land over which the lease is sought. In that view, without any delay, the M.R.O. in his turn shall forward his report to the Assistant Director within 30 days by duly marking a copy of his report to the District Collector. In that view, without any delay, the M.R.O. in his turn shall forward his report to the Assistant Director within 30 days by duly marking a copy of his report to the District Collector. In case of any delay on the part of M.R.O., the Assistant Director can bring the said fact to the notice of the Collector in the monthly District Industrial Promotion Committee meeting and the District Collector has to ensure that the M.R.O. sends his report within the specified time. This is the scheme of the G.O. It is the cardinal principle of law relating to public administration that when law directs a particular aspect to be performed in a particular manner, the same is required to be performed in accordance with the said manner only and any deviation from the said mode and manner would render the entire exercise invalid vide Exotic Granites Exports v. State of Telangana, MANU/AP/0020/2017 : AIR 2017 AP 72 . 13. With the above jurisprudence, when the case on hand is perused, the record shows that the petitioner submitted his mining lease application on 07.09.2010, copy of which is filed along with material papers by the petitioner. Further, the copy of letter No.5620/Q/2010 dated 07.09.2010, which is also filed along with material papers, would show, the Assistant Director of Mines has forwarded the mining lease application of the petitioner to 5th respondent on the same day for issuing NOC. However, it appears, the 5th respondent has not forwarded the Feasibility report – cum – NOC within 30 days as laid under G.O.Ms.No.181 or thereafter. The delay, it must be said, was inordinate and inexplicable that the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.1148/2011 against the Mining Department as well as the 5th respondent herein complaining that the 5th respondent has not issued NOC in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.181. On 28.01.2011, the common High Court of A.P. passed the following order: “In view of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010, dated 28.09.2010, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to send his report/recommendations in the matter directly to the third respondent as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998, as expeditiously as possible. It is however made clear that whether the petitioner is entitled to quarry lease or not is a matter to be considered independently by the respondents.” 14. It is however made clear that whether the petitioner is entitled to quarry lease or not is a matter to be considered independently by the respondents.” 14. Thus, on finding that the 5th respondent did not furnish his report, a direction was issued to 5th respondent to send his report/recommendations directly to the 3rd respondent as per G.O.Ms.No.181 expeditiously. The submission of the petitioner is that thereafter he addressed a letter dated 17.02.2011 to the 5th respondent requesting him to issue NOC by enclosing copy of the order in W.P.No.1148/2011. The petitioner filed the copy of letter dated 17.02.2011 along with material papers. His grievance is that to this letter also there was no response from 5th respondent. In the meanwhile, the mining officials issued show cause notice No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 27.04.2013 to the petitioner as to why his application shall not be rejected as the Tahsildar, Puttur did not incline to issue NOC in his favour even after lapse of 28 months. The petitioner submitted reply dated 03.06.2013 to the 2nd respondent, copy of which is filed along with material papers. This reply shows that when petitioner verified with the office of M.R.O, he was informed that Tahsildar has inspected the subject land along with surveyor and has no objection to issue NOC but the Collector has to issue further orders in that regard. The petitioner thus requested the Director of Mines & Geology to withdraw the show cause notice. Then a perusal of the proceedings No.16199/R5- 1/2013 dated 16.07.2016 of the 2nd respondent would show that he observed that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show cause notice and hence, he was not interested to get quarry lease and further, the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal was also not inclined to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner. On these observations, the 2nd respondent rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. 15. Then, I perused the impugned revision order dated 16.11.2020. It shows that after narrating the grounds of the revision and the remarks of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent has simply dismissed the revision application without giving any reasons. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. 15. Then, I perused the impugned revision order dated 16.11.2020. It shows that after narrating the grounds of the revision and the remarks of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent has simply dismissed the revision application without giving any reasons. As rightly argued by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority has not considered the main plea of the petitioner that in the entire gamut of facts and turn of events, there was no fault of the petitioner and the entire delay in issuing NOC was on the part of the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal/5th respondent alone. 16. In the above context, I perused the counter affidavit filed by 5th respondent. He submits that the total extent in Sy.No.6 of Eswarapuram (Village), Puttur Mandal is Ac.275.65 cents classified as Gutta (Rock) as per fair adangal of the village. Out of the said extent, Ac.76.10 cents has been assigned to the landless poor by carving out from Sy.No.6 and assigning separate sub-divisions. Out of remaining extent, Ac.176.00 cents was allotted for quarry purpose to different lessees mentioned in his counter. Thus, according to him, the balance extent available in Sy.No.6 is Ac.23.55 cents and this balance land is uneven and some parties was under encroachments. Be that it may, it should be noted that the 5th respondent has not given any clear explanation in his counter as to why he did not furnish NOC within 30 days after receiving letter dated 07.09.2010 from the AD, Mines/4th respondent. Even there is no explanation as to why he did not submit NOC after receiving orders in W.P.No.1148/2011. He has the audacity to state that the petitioner did not approach Tahsildar office to inform about the orders in W.P.No.1148/2011. This is the most irresponsible statement besides being incorrect. The petitioner sent a letter dated 17.02.2011 to 5th respondent enclosing copy of the orders in W.P.No.1148/2011 with a request to issue NOC. Therefore, the statement of the 5th respondent is unbelievable. Even otherwise, the 5th respondent being a party in W.P.No.1148/2011 (arrayed as 5th respondent), he cannot expect the petitioner to approach him and furnish a copy of the order in W.P.No.1148/2011 and remind him of his duty to forward his report to 4th respondent. On the other hand, it is his responsibility to comply with the direction in the writ order. On the other hand, it is his responsibility to comply with the direction in the writ order. The attitude of the 5th respondent is highly condemnable. (a) Be that it may, the 5th respondent in order to extricate from his laches took a plea in his counter as if the Government of A.P. issued proceedings No.33948/Assn.1(1)/2012-1 dated 18.08.2012 directing that no NOC should be issued by the Tahsildars in respect of mining lease and quarry lease applications pending further orders in the matter. The 5th respondent has not filed copy of the alleged ban orders along with his counters. Therefore, this Court has no advantage of perusing the so called ban orders. Even assuming the said statement of the 5th respondent to be true, on his own admission the ban order was issued only on 18.08.2012, whereas the lease application of the petitioner was dated 07.09.2010 and the letter of the 4th respondent was also even dated and the order in W.P.No.1148/2011 was dated 28.01.2011 which are all prior to the ban order dated 18.08.2012. Therefore, there was no legal obstacle for 5th respondent to furnish his report-cum-NOC during the relevant period. Thus, running the risk of pleonasm, it must be said that the conduct of 5th respondent is highly inexcusable. Unfortunately the 2nd respondent without considering the ground realities, rejected the lease application of the petitioner on the main ground that the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal was not inclined to issue the NOC in favour of the applicant. It must be noted that the Tahsildar did not express any view by forwarding his report. As such it is quite incomprehensible as to how the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that the Tahsildar/5th respondent was not inclined to issue NOC. It must be mentioned at this juncture that as per G.O.Ms.No.181, a corresponding duty is caste on the 4th respondent to complain to the Collector on the inaction of 5th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault if the 5th respondent did not furnish his report. The other ground on which the 2nd respondent rejected the lease application of the petitioner is also untenable. He observed as if the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show cause notice. However, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 03.06.2013 to the 2nd respondent as stated supra. So, at the outset, the rejection order dated 16.07.2016 is legally and factually unsustainable. He observed as if the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show cause notice. However, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 03.06.2013 to the 2nd respondent as stated supra. So, at the outset, the rejection order dated 16.07.2016 is legally and factually unsustainable. Consequently the impugned revision order dated 16.11.2020 is also not sustainable as it is devoid of reasons. Unfortunately the Revisional Authority has not considered the grounds of revision in a proper perspective. 17. Thus, on a conspectus of facts and law, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned revision order vide Memo No3248/M.I(1)/2020 dated 16.11.2020 passed by 1st respondent is set aside and revision is allowed and consequently the lease application rejection order vide proceedings No.16199/R5-1/2013 dated 16.07.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the 5th respondent is directed to submit a Feasibility report-cum-NOC within two (2) weeks from today and the respondents 2 to 4 shall consider the said report and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law on the lease application of the petitioner and other subsequently filed lease applications till date which are overlapping with the area applied by the petitioner within eight (8) 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.