APHC010457082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24221 OF 2025 Between: 1. VANI GRANITES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Y.V.CHOUDARY, S/O. PITCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. BOWLAVADA VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY INDUSTRIES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2) 2. DIRECTOR OF MINES GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, VISAKHAPATNAM.. ... 4. DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. M/S SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA METALS SAND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SY.NO.44/1-10, TENUGUPUDI VILLAGE, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 013 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 2 pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4TH Respondent in issuing Notice No. 16/e-Auction/AKP/2023, dated 04-01-2024 in principal granting quarry lease in favour Respondent and the action of the 1ST Respondent in not considering Revision dt. 07-08- 2025 filed by the Petitioner and not considering the interim relief in the revision petition is wholly illegal, violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone to an extent of 1.75 hectares in Sy.No.109 of Mamidipalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in terms of Proceedings No.14000/AKP-AH/R1-3/2016, dated 21-2-2018 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the Notice No. 16/e-Auction/AKP/2023, dated 04-01-2024 issued by the District Mines & Geology Officer, Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G N UMA RANI 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24221 OF 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Kondaveeti Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings dated 04.01.2024 considering the case of the 5th respondent herein for grant of quarry lease and the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the petitioner’s Revision Petition and the interim relief sought in the Revision Petition. 3. It is contended that the petitioner has made an application for the issuance of a quarry lease over an extent of 1.25 hectares in Sy.No.109, Mamidipalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 25.07.2005, and the same is pending for consideration. The petitioner further states that another application for the issuance of a quarry lease over an extent of 1.75 hectares in Sy.No.109, Mamidipalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, was made on 28.07.2005, which covers the area included in the earlier application dated 25.07.2005. 4. The 1st application was rejected through proceedings dated 04.05.2007 on the ground that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Tahsildar was not submitted. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner filed a 4 revision application before the Government under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘APMMC Rules, 1966’). 5. The Revision Authority allowed the revision application vide proceedings dated 13.10.2008, setting aside the proceedings dated 04.05.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall submit the NOC from the Revenue Department within two months for consideration. 6. It is contended that the petitioner had accordingly obtained the NOC from the Revenue Department on 21.10.2008 as stipulated by the Revision Authority and submitted a copy of the said NOC to the 3rd respondent on 10.11.2008 within the specified time as fixed by the Revision Authority. 7. It is contended that although the petitioner had submitted the No Objection within the stipulated time, the 3rd respondent rejected the quarry lease applications dated 25.07.2005 and 28.07.2005 on the ground that the area applied and the area physically opted are different. Subsequently, a quarry lease was granted in favour of one Sri N.Ganesh Rao over an extent of 4.00 hectares for a period of 10 years, vide proceedings dated 18.12.2008. 8. It is further contended that, challenging the orders issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner's application and granting the quarry lease to a third party, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1214 of 2009 before the Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.06.2016, directing the petitioner 5 herein to prefer an appeal under Rule 35 of the APMMC Rules, 1966, before the 2nd respondent against the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 03.08.2016. During the pendency of the appeal, the quarry lease granted in favour of the third party had expired, and the area is free for allotment. 10. It is further contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a new Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Policy, 2025, vide G.O.Ms.No.57, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department, dated 18.04.2025. As per the said G.O., all applications pending as of 13.03.2022 shall be considered for the grant of lease, provided the area is free for grant as of the date of issuance of the said Government Order. The G.O. further stipulates that the applicant shall pay a one-time Annual Dead Rent (ADR) as a security deposit within three months from the date of the G.O. 11. It is further contended that, as no orders have been passed on the appeal before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.19708 of 2025 challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the appeal dated 03.08.2016. When the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents informed the Court that the petitioner's appeal had been allowed on 21.02.2018. Thus, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. 6 12. It is contended that without taking into consideration the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent issued a tender notice dated 30.11.2023 over an extent of 6.180 hectares, including the area of 1.75 hectares. The 4th respondent issued proceedings vide e-auction notice dated 04.01.2024, granting the quarry lease to Unofficial Respondent No.5 for road metal, building stone, and gravel over an extent of 6.180 hectares in Sy.No.109/P, Mamidipalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 13. It is further contended that the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 07.08.2025 before the 1st respondent, challenging the proceedings dated 04.01.2024, granting the quarry lease in favour of unofficial respondent No.5. The said Revision Petition is still pending. 14. It is argued by Sri Kondaveeti Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that along with the revision petition, an interlocutory application seeking interim suspension of the proceedings dated 04.01.2024, granting quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent has also been filed. He prays for a direction for disposal of both the interlocutory application and the revision petition which are pending consideration before the 1st respondent. 15. The learned Senior Counsel further argues that in the meantime, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) issued proceedings dated 28.07.2025, calling for objections to the grant of a quarry lease in favour of the 7 unofficial respondent No.5. The petitioner submitted his objections on 11.08.2025. 16. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the quarry lease granted in favour of the unofficial respondent No.5 was not done in transparently it was given in a closed-room situation, without following the tender process. 17. The 2nd respondent, while granting the quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent, did not follow a transparent procedure and did not provide an opportunity for conducting a proper auction. The said auction was conducted in a closed-room manner, which would cause prejudice to the petitioner, especially during the pendency of the revision petition. 18. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of first the interlocutory application, filed in the revision petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and dispose of the revision petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 19.09.2025 BSK 8 22 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24221 OF 2025 Date: 19.09.2025 BSK