rao then filed a second writ petition which was dismissed on 26th september 1969.
appeal from the judgment and order dated august 6 1969 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ petition number 3124 of 1967.
the judgment of the high companyrt shows that the appellant rao had relied on the following three grounds only at the time of agruments on his writ petition firstly that the application of venkatagiri was number made in accordance with rule 27 and 32 of the said rules of 1949 secondly that the application of venkatagiri was number for a fresh lease but for the companytinuation of a previous lease so that it did number fall within the purview of the rules and thirdly that the central government had number companysidered in detail the various comments offered by the state govt.
2 and 3.
ought to have been granted.
the judgment and order of dismissal are number under appeal before us.
p. nayar for respondent number 1.
a companytention numbericed by the high companyrt as a separate ground of attack was that the central govt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2580 of 1969.
the ground on which the application of the appellant rao was rejected was that venkatagin had a prior claim.
the state government rejected the application of 11 8 1960 on 7 12 1960 but granted the application made on 4th october 1950 by the respondent kumara rajah of venkatagiri hereinafter referred to as venkatagiri .
the main companytention of rao was that the application of venkatagiri had to be disregarded as it failed to companyply with the rules and therefore was number an application in the eye of law so that out of several companypeting applications raos application.
the appellant rao had then preferred a revision application to the central government under the mineral companycession rules which came into force on 11th numberember 1960.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by beg j. this appeal from a judgment and order of the andhra pradesh high companyrt dismissing the appeallants writ petition companyes up before us by certificate under article 133 1 a of the companystitution in the following circumstances one buchivenkata rao had filed application on 1 9 1959 and 1 8 1960 under mineral companycession rules there in after referred to as the rules before the companylector of nellore for the grant of a mining lease to him of an area mentioned in his applications.
the central government had rejected the revision application on the ground that it was number filed within the prescribed time.
the central government had after giving due opportunity to be heard to the appellant rao dismissed his application on 18th october 1967 holding that venkatagiri had priority over his claim.
p. rao and t. v. s. narasimhachari for respondent number 4.
ram reddy and a. v. v. nair for respondents number.
subba rao for the appellants.
with regard to each ground of revision.
the central government was directed to companysider raos application on merits.
he alleged that his applications complied with the rules framed under the mines and minerals regulation and development act of 1957.
upon a writ petition filed in the high companyrt of andhra pradesh the order of rejection of the revision application by the central government was quashed.
