Against the said order the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was rejected in view of the alternative remedy of appeal to Government, provided by Rules.
On 18.7.87 his son, the fourth respondent, applied for grant of lease in respect of 18 acres in the said survey number.
Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No.
It companytains a minor mineral, lime stone slab.
On 10.8.87 the appellant, a Labour Cooperative Society, applied for lease in respect of the entire extent of 40 acres.
On 17.2.88, fifth respondent which too is a Labour Cooperative Society applied for lease in respect of the entire extent of 40 acres.
Both of them filed revisions before the Government which were allowed and their applications remitted for disposal in accordance with law to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Cuddapah.
The application filed by the appellant was rejected as barred by time.
The writ petition was heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge, who held that the grant of lease in favour of the fourth respondent is proper and valid but that the rejection of the application filed by the appellant is illegal.
He then filed the writ petition No.
On 17.7.87 however he withdrew his application.
He applied for renewal of the lease 90 days before the expiry of his lease as companytemplated by Sub rule 2 of Rule 13 of the said rules.
One Venkatesan was granted a lease for the said extent earlier.
The term of his lease was expiring on 20.8.87.
On 3.10.1988, the Deputy Director passed orders granting lease in respect of 18 acres in favour of fourth respondent son of the previous lessee and the remaining 22 acres in favour of the fifty respondent.
1062 of 1991 while the fifth respondent preferred cross objections.
No orders were passed thereon by the appropriate authorities.
4748/89 from which the present appeal arises.
Both these applications remained pending till the expiry of 90 days from the respective dates they were filed, with the result that they were deemed to have been rejected.
Appellant accordingly preferred an appeal to the Government which was dismissed on 28.3.1989.
Both of them were heard by a Division Bench which disposed of the Writ Appeal in the following terms The order of the learned Single Judge companyfirming the grant in favour of the fourth respondent is unexceptionable.
The grant in favour of the fifth respondent was set aside and the Deputy Director directed to reconsider the applications of the appellant and the fifth respondent in accordance with the rules.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. Leave granted.
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Writ Appeal 1062 of 1991 preferred by the Appellant.
650/1 Palukar Village in Kurnool District is of an extent of 40 acres.
