IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1251 of 2009 Between: The Lam Labour Contract Co-Op. Society Ltd., represented by its President Shaik Sadik, Lam Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur-7. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur-7. 3 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing No.5641/Q-1/2006, dated 09.01.2009 of the 1st Respondent- Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Guntur determining the quarry lease of the Petitioner-Society in Sy.No. 199/B(P) of Lam Village while enjoying the leasehold rights over the property as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and to pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 1251 of 2009 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the first respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur dated 09-01-2009, determining the quarry lease of the petitioner-society in Sy.No.199/B(P) of Lam Village is arbitrary and illegal. Though various contentions have been raised assailing the impugned order of cancellation, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits since an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966. Without exhausting such an efficacious remedy of appeal available under the statute, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. Keeping in view the specific plea of the petitioner that the impugned order has not been given effect to and the members of the petitioner-society are carrying on the metal quarry as on today, the impugned order of determination shall stand suspended for a period of four weeks from today. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 29-01-2009 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP