IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25241 of 2004 Between: Pallapu Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Pallapu Venkata Rayudu, Resident of Upparapalem Village(via) Vankayalapadu, Yediapadu Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce (mines II) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep.by its Principal Secretary. 2 Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, Government of Andhra Pradesh , Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geolgoy Guntur. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur. 5 Smt. P.Manjula, W/o Late Pallapu Laxminarayana Vankayalapadu Post, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No.286/N-II(1)/2004-1 dt. 17/11/2004 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Proc.No.12180/K4/93 dt.16/08/1993 and the order of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.1901/93 dt. 29/03/1993 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondents to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 25241 of 2004 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the order of 1st respondent in Memo No.286/M-II(1)/2004-12 dated 17.11.2004 confirming the order of 2nd respondent in Proc.No.12180/K4/93 dated 16.8.1993 and the order of 3rd respondent in Proc.No.1901/Q1/93 dated 29.3.1993, as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct 3rd respondent to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. The 5th respondent appears to have filed an application for quarry lease on 26.5.1992 for an extent of Ac.5.00 of land in S.No.240/10 of Vankayalapadu village, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner also seems to have applied for stone quarry lease against the very same land, on 15.10.1992. When the application filed by 5th respondent dated 26.5.1992 was not disposed of within 180 days, on the basis of deemed rejection the 5th respondent filed revision before the Government. The said revision was allowed and on the basis of the orders passed by the revisional authority, quarry leave was granted in favour of 5th respondent and the same was renewed in the year 2003 for a period of 10 years. While that being so, on the ground that the area that has been shown by the petitioner is overlapping with the area shown by 5th respondent, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.3.1993. Against the said rejection, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by an order dated 16.8.1993 rejected the said appeal. Therefore, he filed W.P. No. 12776 of 1993 before this court and the same was dismissed. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 1100 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner herein. Then the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent-Government along with an application for grant of stay. On 7.4.1997 stay orders were passed by the 1st respondent. While so, on coming to know that the lease granted in favour of 5th respondent was renewed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent stating that the earlier revision filed by him is pending adjudication and even before the revision is disposed of, the renewal of lease granted in favour of 5th respondent is illegal. On the said application, the 1st respondent has passed order dated 8.1.2004 staying the orders of 2nd respondent. However, it is the case of the petitioner, that the 1st respondent without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to him has passed an order 12.3.2004 vacating the stay granted earlier and aggrieved by the said order passed by the 1st respondent the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6796 of 2004 before this Court and the same was allowed on 27.4.2004. Thereafter, the matter was heard by 1st respondent and the 1st respondent dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Challenging the said order passed by the 1st respondent, whereunder the order passed by 2nd respondent was confirmed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that since the application initially filed by 5th respondent was rejected and the revision was filed before the Government and by that time his application dated 15.10.1992 was also pending before 4th respondent, he was entitled for a notice in the revision petition filed by 5th respondent before the Government, but the revision filed by the 5th respondent was allowed without issuing any notice to him. However, the material available on record discloses that, in fact, challenge was made to such an order by way of writ petition and the same was dismissed and the writ appeal filed against the order passed in the writ petition was also dismissed directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law. Then the petitioner has filed revision before the Government, but the same was dismissed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to challenge the order made by the revisional authority, in the revision filed by 5th respondent, on the ground that the principles of natural justice are violated. The petitioner has availed the remedies available to him and failed. In the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by 1st respondent, it is observed “there are no reasons to interfere with the Appeal dismissal orders of Director of Mines & Geology in Proceedings No.12180/K4/93 dated 16.8.1993; hence, the I.A. and also the revision application, which was stated to have been filed by Sri P. Sreenivasa Rao, but not traced out in Government, are hereby dismissed”. Thus, it appears that very revision said to have been filed was not there. Under such circumstances, the above order was passed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 18-6-2009. MVB.