Midwest Granite Priavate Limited vs The Government Of A.P. Rep. By The ... on 29 April, 2013
24. In any event even if 4th respondent is a Schedule Tribe, it cannot be a
"special reason" to overlook the claim of petitioner who had applied first in
point of time and is entitled to priority under Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules. As
stated by this Court in Ch.V.Girish's case (1 supra) the special reasons as
contemplated by Rule 12(5)(b) of the Rules to overlook the principle of first
come first served should be valid and sound reasons, in furtherance of the
object and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder. The fact that 4th respondent is a
Schedule Tribe is an irrelevant reason on the basis of which the priority of the
petitioner could not have been overlooked by the respondents 1 to 3. This also
vitiates the orders of the respondents 1 and 2.