ORDER : 1. The writ petitioner prays for a mandamus declaring the action of respondents in rejecting the quarry lease application of the petitioner for Black Granite mineral over an extent of 4.00 Hectares in Sy.Nos.38/1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2’O’ of Murikipudi Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District vide proceedings No.845/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 and consequently proposing to grant quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent vide proceedings No.6669/D7/2021 dated 28.04.2021 to the extent of 2.440 Hectares in Sy.Nos.38/1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 38/2C of Murikipudi Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the APMMC Rules, 1966’) and for such other orders. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) On 23.04.2016, the petitioner made an application for lease of black granite over an extent of 4.00 Hectares in the area as stated supra to the 3rd respondent by paying prescribed application fee. The 3rd respondent referred his application to the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta for issuing NOC and the Tahsildar sought opinion of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Guntur since the applied area was classified as ‘Vaagu’ and hence, whether the said land was suitable for quarrying and NOC can be issued. The Executive Engineer vide letter No.EE/ID/GNT/DB/TO/734 dated 05.02.2018 opined that the land was suitable for grant of quarry lease and NOC can be issued. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta issued NOC vide Lr.No.RC.No.562/2017-A dated 03.03.2018. For a period of two years nothing transpired thereafter. (b) While so, a joint inspection and survey over applied area was held on 17.12.2020. It was made known that that an extent of Ac.7.61 cents was feasible for quarrying operations and the said area was demarcated and boundaries were fixed. Thereafter, for some time no further progress was made in the matter. The petitioner made requests on 02.02.2021 and 10.02.2021 to the respondents to process his application at the earliest since his application was the earliest one. He received letter No.375/RTI/2021 dated 16.02.2021 informing that as per the list of applications submitted over the subject area, the petitioner’s application was at Sl.No.5 and all the applications received earlier to his application were rejected and the petitioner’s application was also recommended for rejection and the application dated 11.08.2020 submitted by 4th respondent was recommended to be considered for grant of mining lease. The 4th respondent application was received 3 years 100 days later to the application of petitioner, but same was proposed to be considered by overlooking the priority of the petitioner’s application. (c) Following said information, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice No.854/D7/2021 dated 17.02.2021 to the petitioner calling upon his explanation for not paying the enhanced application fee, deposit-amount and also regarding his submission of defective sketch. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation dated 03.03.2021 stating that the enhanced application fees was claimed under G.O.Ms.No.56, Industries & Commerce (MII) Department dated 30.04.2016 which is prospective in operation but not retrospective in effect and since applications were received prior to the date of said G.O., enhanced application fee need not be paid. Regarding the allegations as to the wrong sketch, he stated that the sketch enclosed was a correct one because the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta identified the applied area on ground with reference to the sketch submitted by him and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department has also issued NOC for grant of quarry lease of black granite based on the said sketch. Thus, submitting the explanation the petitioner as an abundant caution has paid the differential application fee vide challan dated 03.03.2021 and enclosed to his explanation. A re-drawn sketch as per the Geo-coordinates was also enclosed. However, subsequently there was no reply from the Department. There is no compelling cause to give priority to the 4th respondent over the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.8077/2021 dated 06.04.2021. When the matter came up for hearing on 01.07.2021, counsel for 4th respondent informed to the Court that the application of petitioner for quarry lease had been rejected vide proceedings No.845/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 of 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ petition was taken up on 06.07.2021 and dismissed as infructuous. In the meanwhile, the petitioner on enquiry came to know that his application was rejected vide proceedings No.845/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 on untenable grounds and the lease was proposed to be granted to 4th respondent vide proceedings No.6669/D7/2021 dated 28.04.2021. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the petitioner on enquiry came to know that his application was rejected vide proceedings No.845/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 on untenable grounds and the lease was proposed to be granted to 4th respondent vide proceedings No.6669/D7/2021 dated 28.04.2021. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition. (a) While admitting that the petitioner submitted an application dated 22.04.2016 seeking quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 4.000 Hectares, it is stated that, the application of the petitioner was referred by 3rd respondent to the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta Mandal vide letter No.2918/Q/2016 dated 23.04.2016 for issuing NOC over the subject area. (b) Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter No.2918/Q/2016 dated 27.06.2017 to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards enhanced application fee and an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards enhanced deposit-amount as required under G.O.Ms.No.56, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department dated 30.04.2016, but the applicant did not respond. (c) It is further stated that the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta addressed a letter in Rc.No.562/2017-A dated 03.03.2018 to 3rd respondent and submitted classification and availability of the land after obtaining necessary clearances from the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Guntur as the land under reference was classified as ‘Vaagu’. The said NOC was received by the 3rd respondent office on 09.03.2018 along with three other NOCs pertaining to (1) M.Rajeswari (2) R.Lakshmamma and (3) K.Venkateswarlu. (d) It is submitted that the petitioner failed to show the required area of 4.000 Hectares on ground out of the earmarked area of Ac.24.37 cents in the sketch enclosed to the statutory application of Form ‘P’ and the applied sketch was not signed by the Licensed Surveyor and the differential application fee and deposit-amount as required under G.O.Ms.No.56 was not paid. (e) While so, a joint inspection was held on 17.12.2020, to which the representative of the petitioner attended, but he failed to show the area opted on the ground as against the applied area of 4.000 Hectares duly demarcating the entire extent of Ac.24.37 cents in Sy.No.38. In those circumstances, the petitioner’s application was recommended for rejection vide File No.2198/Q/2016 dated 12.01.2021 of the 3rd respondent office. In those circumstances, the petitioner’s application was recommended for rejection vide File No.2198/Q/2016 dated 12.01.2021 of the 3rd respondent office. (f) In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent filed an application dated 11.09.2020 for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 4.233 Hectares in Sy.Nos.38/1, 2, 3, 4 and 552/1 & 2 of Murikipudi Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District for 20 years by duly paying the application fee and the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta vide letter dated 30.11.2020 issued NOC in favour of 4th respondent for grant of land to an extent of Ac.7.61 cents situated in Sy.Nos.38-1A, 38-2A, 38-2B, 38-2C of Murikipudi Village. Hence, the 3rd respondent submitted combined proposals for granting quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent and proposal for rejection of the petitioner’s application on the grounds of non-submission of differential application fee and deposit-amount and non-submission of properly demarcated sketch duly showing the area applied for. (g) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner after lapse of 1½ month from the date of joint inspection, vide his letter dated 29.01.2021 represented before 3rd respondent that the Tahsildar issued him NOC for quarry lease over an extent of Ac. 6.41 cents over the subject applied area and he also made representation dated 02.02.2021 before 2nd respondent stating that his application is having priority and the same may be considered. Basing on the aforesaid representation and on perusal of the office records, the 3rd respondent submitted further report dated 09.02.2021 to 2nd respondent reiterating the lapses of the petitioner and ultimately requested 2nd respondent to take action on the proposals submitted in favour of 4th respondent since the application of the petitioner though having priority but a defective one. (h) On receiving the above combined proposals from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice No.854/D7/2021 dated 17.02.2021 to the petitioner, and he submitted reply dated 03.03.2021 which was found to be not correct. Hence, his application was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2021. There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same may be dismissed. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter similar to that of the other respondents. He would contend that the lease application rejection order passed against the petitioner is legally sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56 has not paid the application fee. There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same may be dismissed. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter similar to that of the other respondents. He would contend that the lease application rejection order passed against the petitioner is legally sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56 has not paid the application fee. Though G.O.Ms.No.56 was issued subsequent to the filing of application by the petitioner, still the mining authorities have to follow the rules which are in force as on the date of consideration of the application for grant of mining lease and in that context, as on the date of consideration of the applications, the G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016 was in vogue and the petitioner has not paid the application fee in terms thereof. Further, he did not submit the neat sketch drawn demarcating the boundaries signed by him and qualified surveyor. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard arguments of Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Vivekanand, counsel for 4th respondent. 6. Severely denouncing the proceedings dated 07.04.2021 of 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s quarry lease application, Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the grounds under which the application was rejected are factually and legally unsustainable. (a) In expatiation, he would submit that as per the show cause notice dated 17.02.2021, the petitioner did not pay the enhanced application fee and deposit-amount in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016 and nextly that the sketch filed along with lease application was defective, inasmuch as, the petitioner has failed to submit the demarcated sketch clearly showing the required area of 4.000 Hectares out of Ac.24.37 cents in several survey numbers duly signed by qualified surveyor. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 03.03.2021 explaining the defects raised by 2nd respondent in the show cause notice. (b) Learned counsel would submit that so far as 1st defect is concerned, admittedly the petitioner submitted his application on 23.04.2016 and he paid application fee of Rs.7,500/- and made deposit of Rs.40,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- per Hectare as per Rule 12 of the APMMC Rules, 1966 in vogue by then. (b) Learned counsel would submit that so far as 1st defect is concerned, admittedly the petitioner submitted his application on 23.04.2016 and he paid application fee of Rs.7,500/- and made deposit of Rs.40,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- per Hectare as per Rule 12 of the APMMC Rules, 1966 in vogue by then. The APMMC Rules, 1966 were amended by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.56 w.e.f. 30.04.2016 and Rule 12(5)(a)(i) was also amended and application fee was increased to Rs.10,000/- and deposit was increased to Rs.25,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that the said amendment is only prospective in nature since there was no insinuation in the G.O. that it applies retrospectively. Hence, the G.O.Ms.No.56 will have no effect on the application of the petitioner as same was filed prior to the G.O. came into force. However, to avoid controversy, the petitioner after receiving the show cause notice deposited the differential application fee and paid deposit-amount. In that view, the mining department cannot allege that there was short payment by the petitioner. To buttress his contention that the subject G.O. shall be construed as prospective in operation, he placed reliance on (i) AAPSCI Welfare Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P.No.40130/2017 dated 27.12.2017] passed by the learned single Judge of the common High Court of A.P. (c) With regard to the second defect alleged in the show cause notice, learned counsel would argue that along with his application the petitioner has submitted a duly demarcated sketch as per the survey and demarcation carried out by qualified surveyor. He would argue that if no such clearly demarcated sketch was filed along with application, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology/3rd respondent would have rejected his application at the threshold and would not have forwarded it to the Tahsildar for issuing NOC. Therefore, it is preposterous to allege that demarcated sketch was not filed. Further, the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta having appreciated the sketch, consulted the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Guntur to clarify whether NOC could be issued since the subject land was recorded as ‘Vaagu’ in the revenue records. The Executive Engineer on his part having clearly understood the sketch, gave his opinion that Vaagu was not in existence and water comes from upstream and therefore, some extent of the land has to be earmarked for free flow of water and remaining extent can be safely granted for quarry lease. The Executive Engineer on his part having clearly understood the sketch, gave his opinion that Vaagu was not in existence and water comes from upstream and therefore, some extent of the land has to be earmarked for free flow of water and remaining extent can be safely granted for quarry lease. Ultimately, the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta identified applied area on ground as per sketch and issued NOC for available extent out of the applied area. In that view, the question of non-filing of the demarcated sketch does not arise. However, to avoid controversy in this aspect also, the petitioner submitted a fresh demarcated sketch in a scaled map duly indicating the Geo-coordinates on the sketch for perusal. The Tahsildar issued NOC for an extent of Ac.6.41 cents and during the resurvey it was noticed that Ac.7.61 cents was available and as per the Geo-coordinates Ac.9.32 cents is available, for which the petitioner prayed for lease and meticulously explained in his explanation. However, the Director of Mines & Geology/2nd respondent has not at all appreciated the explanation of the petitioner in a right perspective and with predetermination, discarded his explanation and unduly rejected the application. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology while supporting the impugned proceedings would argue that the petitioner has not submitted a detailed sketch clearly identifying the area of 4.000 Hectares out of Ac. 24.37 cents. Further, he did not pay the amended application fee and pay the deposit immediately after G.O.Ms.No.56 was issued. Therefore, his application was rightly rejected by 2nd respondent. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri O.Manoher Reddy for 4th respondent argued that the G.O.Ms.No.56 which concerns with the amendment of APMMC Rules, 1966 would operate retrospectively in the light of the decisions in (1) State of Tamilnadu v. Hind Stone, MANU/SC/0394/1981 = AIR 1981 SC 711 (2) V.Karnal Durai v. District Collector, Tuticorin, 1999 (1) SCC 475 (3) State of Kerala v. B.Six Holiday Resorts Private Limited, 2010 (5) SCC 186 and (4) State of Kerala v. Palakkad Heritage Hotels, 2017 (13) SCC 672 and hence, by the date of taking a decision on the quarry lease application of the petitioner, the law which is in vogue has to be followed by the mining authorities. Meaning thereby, the petitioner’s application was a defective one since the required application fee and money-deposit per Hectare was not made in tune with amended APMMC Rules, 1966 and therefore, the petitioner’s application was liable to be rejected. Merely because the petitioner made good the deficit at a later point of time that too after issuing show cause notice by 2nd respondent, that will not cure inherent defect in the original application. At best his application has to be treated as a renewed application or a fresh application. Learned counsel would thus argue that the decision cited by the petitioner, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court referred supra by him, should be held as per incuriam. Learned counsel would further argue that since the petitioner’s application was defective one, his application was rightly rejected under the impugned proceedings and as the 4th respondent’s application was perfect in all respects, lease was recommended in her favour. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The point for consideration is whether the defects pointed out in the proceedings No.845/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 by the 2nd respondent are factually and legally sustainable to reject the lease application of the petitioner? 10. Point: Admittedly, the petitioner submitted quarry lease application for granite over an extent of 4.000 Hectares out of Ac.24.37 cents in Sy.Nos.38/1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2’O’ of Murikipudi Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal under Rule 12(5) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 on 23.04.2016 by paying lease application fee of Rs.7,500/- and making a deposit of Rs.40,000/- i.e., @ Rs.10,000/- per Hectare as per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 in vogue by then. It is also an admitted fact that on the same day the Assistant Director forwarded a copy of the application to Tahsildar, Chilakaluripeta seeking NOC to consider the application. Thereafter, there was no further progress in the matter from the end of Mining Department. Thereafter, on the proposal of 3rd respondent vide letter No.2206/Q/2016 dated 12.01.2021, the Director of Mines & Geology/2nd respondent issued the show cause notice No.854/D7/2021 dated 17.02.2021 to the petitioner stating that as per the letter of 3rd respondent, the application of the petitioner contains following defects and hence, why his application shall not be rejected. (i) The applicant did not pay enhanced application fee and the deposit-amount as per the G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016. (i) The applicant did not pay enhanced application fee and the deposit-amount as per the G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2016. (ii) The petitioner did not submit the demarcated sketch with required area in a scaled map duly signed by a qualified surveyor. (a) The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 03.03.2021. However, having not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation, the impugned lease rejection proceedings dated 07.04.2021 came to be issued by 2nd respondent, which is now under challenge. In that view, it has now to be seen whether the defects noted in the show cause notice are factually and legally valid and if so, whether the petitioner’s explanation is a befitting one. (b) As per the show cause notice, 1st defect is that the petitioner did not pay the renewed application fee and deposit–amount in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.56. The petitioner initially denied his liability to pay renewed fee and of course, later paid the differential amount in tune with G.O.Ms.No.56 under protest. However, the respondents would contend that the law in vogue as on the date of consideration of the petitioner’s application would apply and that since the petitioner has not paid the deficit amount immediately after G.O.Ms.No.56 came into force and paid the amount only after issuance of the show cause notice, his application shall be treated only as a fresh or a renewed application. I will discuss about this controversy a little while later. Before that, it should be made clear that though in his show cause notice the 2nd respondent has treated non-payment of the differential amount as per G.O.Ms.No.56 as a defect, however, in his impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2021, on knowing from the reply of the petitioner that he paid the enhanced application fee and made the differential deposit-amount, did not make any comment as to whether the late payment made by the petitioner would adversely affect his case and render his application still a defective one. It should be noted that he rejected the application on a different ground but not for the late payment of the differential application fee and deposit-amount. It should be noted that he rejected the application on a different ground but not for the late payment of the differential application fee and deposit-amount. Hence, his conclusion in the impugned proceedings is extracted hereunder: “From the above points it is evident that the applicant Sri G.Syam Sunder has not filed application along with a sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by the applicant and by a qualified surveyor and also established that the valuable mineral bearing area is blocked intentionally since 2016 resulting in loss of optimum mineral revenue to the State Ex-chequer besides non exploration of mineral for Public utility. Hence, it is construed that the application deserves rejection as to make the area available for grant to the eligible and interested entrepreneurs. Under the circumstances stated above, the quarry lease application dated 22.04.2016 filed by Sri G.Syam Sunder received by the ADM&G, Guntur on 23.04.2016 for grant of quarry lease for Black Granite an extent of 4.000 Hectares in the Sy.No.38/1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2O of Murikipudi Vilalge, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District is hereby rejected under Rule 12(5)(d) of APMMC Rules, 1966 and the deposit amount is forfeited to the Government Head of Account.” (c) Thus, it is obvious the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s application on the sole ground that he filed application without a sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by the applicant and also by a qualified surveyor, but not on any other ground, muchless the ground that G.O.Ms.No.56 operate retrospectively and thereby the petitioner ought to have deposited the differential amount immediately after the said G.O. came into force and since he did not do so, his application shall be rejected or at best be treated as fresh application. In that view and also that the petitioner though contended that G.O.Ms.No.56 operates only prospectively but later paid the differential amount in terms thereof, the discussion and decision on the controversy of prospectivity or retrospectivity of G.O.Ms.No.56 is only of academic interest. However, for clarity sake that aspect is discussed hereunder. 11. As stated supra, the petitioner paid application fee of Rs.7,500/- and deposit-amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e., @ Rs.10,000/- per Hectare as per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 which were in force as on the date of application. However, for clarity sake that aspect is discussed hereunder. 11. As stated supra, the petitioner paid application fee of Rs.7,500/- and deposit-amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e., @ Rs.10,000/- per Hectare as per Rule 12(5)(a)(i) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 which were in force as on the date of application. G.O.Ms.No.56, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 30.04.2016 amending the APMMC Rules, 1966 came into force w.e.f. 30.04.2016. Rule 12(5)(a)(i) was amended enhancing the application fee to Rs.10,000/- and money deposit to Rs.25,000/- per hectare. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioner, in the said G.O. there is no indication that the amended rules would operate retrospectively. Hence, it appears that when 3rd respondent sent letter No.2198/Q/2016 dated 27.06.2017 to pay the differential amount in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.56, the petitioner rightly did not respond. However, after issuance of show cause notice dated 17.02.2021, the petitioner while giving reply dated 03.03.2021 clearly narrated this fact and of course paid the differential amount under protest. The argument that the G.O.Ms.No.56 is prospective in operation, in my view, is well found in view of the judgment in AAPSCI Welfare Association (supra) cited by the petitioner. (a) In the above decision, the facts briefly are that the petitioners applied for mining lease of road metal, building stone and gravel under Rule 12(1) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 and paid the application fee as per the Rules. However, subsequently G.O.Ms.No.81, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 01.06.2017 came into force amending Rule 12(1), by virtue of which the application fee and deposit-amount were enhanced. When the ADM&G insisted the petitioners to pay the differential amount as in the instant case, they challenged his letter on the main ground, G.O.Ms.No.81 would operate only prospectively and will not affect the pending applications for mining leases. The petitioners therein relied upon (1) Federation of Indian Mineral Industries v. Union of India, (2017) 16 SCC 186 . Like in the instant case, the Government and the Mining Department argued that the petitioners have no vested right to consider their applications and grant lease in their favour as per the unamended rule and on the other hand, the applications for different grants can be considered by the concerned authorities applying the rules in vogue as on the date of consideration of the applications, but not the Rules in force as on the date of application. The respondents mainly relied upon the decision in State of Tamilnadu (1 supra). (b) Be that it may, a learned single Judge of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh considering the decisions relied upon by the petitioner mainly the decision in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (5 supra), wherein it was held that under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, no State Government has power to frame rules with retrospective effect, upheld the contention of the petitioners therein and allowed the writ petition. (c) In Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (5 supra), the Apex Court was considering the question whether the State Governments could establish District Mineral Foundations (DMFs) in their respective States under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 from a retrospective date prior to the date of notification. In this regard, the Apex Court while considering the rule making power conferred under Sections 13 & 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on Central and State Governments respectively held that those provisions do not confer the powers on respective Governments to make rules retrospectively. It was observed as under: “28. On the facts before us, it is clear that Section 15 of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. This section does not specifically or by necessary implication empower the State Government to frame any rule with retrospective effect. Also, the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the State Government to fictionally create the DMF deeming it to be in existence from a date earlier than the date of the notification establishing the DMF. Therefore, it must follow that under the provisions of the MMDR Act that we are concerned with, no State Government has the power to frame a rule with retrospective effect or to create a deeming fiction, either specifically or by necessary intendment. 29. Similarly, Section 13 of the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the Central Government to frame any rule with retrospective effect. 29. Similarly, Section 13 of the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the Central Government to frame any rule with retrospective effect. Section 9-B(5) and (6) read with clause (qqa) inserted in Section 13(2) of the MMDR Act enable the Central Government to make rules to provide for the amount of payment to be made to the DMF established by the State Government under Section 9-B(1) of the MMDR Act. None of these provisions confer any power on the Central Government to require the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease to contribute to the DMF with retrospective effect. Therefore, even the scope and extent of the rule-making power of the Central Government is limited.” (d) Needless to emphasize that the decision in AAPSCI Welfare Association applies with all fours to the case on hand, inasmuch as, the issue now also relates to the retro-operability of the APMMC Rules, 1966. In this context, the contention of Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent, that the above decision is per incuriam in the light of the decisions cited by him cannot be accepted. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel would no doubt propound the general principle that the concerned authorities shall apply the rules in vogue as on the date of consideration of the applications but not the ones in force on the date of application. There is no demur with the aforesaid principle. However, it should be noted that so far as the rule making power of the Central Government and the State Governments under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is concerned, the Apex Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (5 supra) has in clear tone held that those sections do not confer any specific power on the respective governments to make any rule with retrospective effect. Since the said decision was rendered by the Full Bench, it has to be followed. Thus, at the outset, the petitioner is not required to pay the enhanced application fee and deposit-amount. However, he paid the said amount after receiving the show cause notice and in the impugned order the 2nd respondent did not consider this late payment as a defect on the part of the petitioner. So, the above discussion is only of academic in nature. However, he paid the said amount after receiving the show cause notice and in the impugned order the 2nd respondent did not consider this late payment as a defect on the part of the petitioner. So, the above discussion is only of academic in nature. (e) Then, the only ground on which the petitioner’s application was rejected was that the petitioner did not file a sketch drawn to the scale demarcating the boundaries duly signed by himself and qualified surveyor. The petitioner submitted a stout reply stating that he in fact he submitted a demarcated sketch as per the survey and demarcation carried out by qualified surveyor along with lease application which was considered by the Tahsildar and Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department and ultimately NOC was issued. On perusal of the record, I find force in his contention. As soon as receiving the lease application from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter in Rc.No.2198/Q/2016 dated 23.04.2016 to the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet for grant of NOC. As rightly contended, if the petitioner did not file the sketch, the 3rd respondent ought to have returned his application with the said objection without referring the same to the Tahsildar. Further, the letter of the Tahsildar in Rc.No.562/2017-A dated 21.07.2017 to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department shows that since the land sought for lease is classified as ‘Vaagu’ in the revenue records, the Tahsildar sought clarification as to whether the applied land will be suitable for quarrying purpose. If the sketch was not there, the Tahsildar would not have sought for such advice. The Executive Engineer in turn addressed letter No.EE/ID/GNT/DB/TO/734 dated 05.02.2018 to the Tahsildar and clarified that there were no traces of water course passing through the proposed land in Sy.No.38 on the ground and suffice if 10 metres width of land is left for draining out for free flow of water from upstream side to downstream side. He concluded that granting of lease of Ac. 10.00 cents in Sy.No.38 will not affect any flow of water. Thereupon, the Tahsildar in his letter in Rc.No.562/2017-A dated 03.03.2018 has stated that out of Ac.24.37 cents in Sy.No.38 some land was already assigned and an extent of Ac.6.41 cents was available for granting quarry lease. (f) The above correspondence, copies of which are filed along with material papers, would clearly manifest that the petitioner has filed demarcated sketch. Thereupon, the Tahsildar in his letter in Rc.No.562/2017-A dated 03.03.2018 has stated that out of Ac.24.37 cents in Sy.No.38 some land was already assigned and an extent of Ac.6.41 cents was available for granting quarry lease. (f) The above correspondence, copies of which are filed along with material papers, would clearly manifest that the petitioner has filed demarcated sketch. Otherwise his application would have been returned at the threshold. Even otherwise, after receiving the show cause notice, he submitted another demarcated sketch. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application on the sole ground that the petitioner did not submit demarcated sketch is unsustainable and same is liable to be set aside and so also the proposal of 2nd respondent dated 28.04.2021 to grant lease to 4th respondent, a subsequent applicant, in respect of same area applied by the petitioner is also liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings No.854/D7/2021 dated 07.04.2021 of 2nd respondent rejecting the lease application of the petitioner and also his proposal vide notice No.669/D7/2021 dated 28.04.2021 granting lease in favour of 4th respondent are hereby set aside with a direction to grant lease in favour of the petitioner as per his lease application in terms of the NOC issued by the Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet and enter into lease agreement within four (4) 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.