https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173895 The SC interpreted the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 by reading Rule 12(4) harmoniously with Rule 13(2). Renewal applications by the existing lessee had first priority if made in time; if not disposed of, renewal was deemed rejected, and fresh applications were then to be considered in a statutory order of preference. The Court treated the word "within" in Rule 12(4) as not controlling the scheme and classified applications into separate categories based on timing and priority. On the facts, the appellant's application did not outrank the fifth respondent's claim, and the existing grant in favour of the fifth respondent was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:51:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173895 The SC interpreted the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 by reading Rule 12(4) harmoniously with Rule 13(2). Renewal applications by the existing lessee had first priority if made in time; if not disposed of, renewal was deemed rejected, and fresh applications were then to be considered in a statutory order of preference. The Court treated the word "within" in Rule 12(4) as not controlling the scheme and classified applications into separate categories based on timing and priority. On the facts, the appellant's application did not outrank the fifth respondent's claim, and the existing grant in favour of the fifth respondent was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173895