Murugan Granites vs Rathna Mineral Enterprises and Others

S.B. Majmudar, C.J.—We have heard the learned advocates for the parties in this appeal finally by treating the same to have been admitted for final hearing.

Grievance made by the appellant-original fifth respondent before us is not only that the learned Single Judge while setting aside the revisional order dated 20-11-1992 in the revisions preferred by the appellant-fifth respondent before the State authority has directed that personal hearing may be given to the parties and they may be permitted to file written arguments but that the revisions themselves are not competent at mis stage inasmuch as against the original orders dated 11-5-1992 and 17-7-1992 appeals would lie under Rule 35 to the third respondent-Director of Mines and Geology and, therefore, the first respondent herein should have approached appellate authority. When this was put to the learned Counsel for the first respondent herein, he readily agreed that his revisions must be sent to competent appellate authority with a direction to treat the same as appeals against the original orders and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and affording them opportunity to file written arguments.

In our view, interests of justice would be served if we modify the order of the learned single Judge by directing that the remanded revisions should be decided by the third respondent herein under Rule 35 of the Rules as appeals. Third respondent will give opportunity to the parties to have their say in the matter by according them personal hearing as well as opportunity to file written arguments in support of their respective contentions. Appeals shall be decided by the third respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of writ order at his end.

Respondent No. 2-Government of Andhra Pradesh before whom revisions are filed earlier shall forward the remanded revisions to the third respondent''s Office for treating the same as appeals and deciding the matter as hereinabove provided.

Status quo as existing on spot regarding grant of quarry lease in respect of remaining five acres of land will continue till final disposal of the aforesaid appeals by the third respondent. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the appellant fifth respondent exploiting the other five acres of land in respect of which lease has already been granted to the appellant-fifth respondent by order dated 17-7-1992 and for which the learned Counsel for the first respondent-writ petitioner has no objection.

Writ appeal will stand accordingly allowed to the aforesaid limited extent with no order as to costs.