HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4281 of 2011 Date: February 22, 2011 Between: K. Jagan, S/o.Narayana, aged 34 years, Occ:business, R/o. H.No.1-1-452/1, Bheemunidubba, Korutla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not passing orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 21- 12-2009 against the orders of respondent No.2-Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.37324/R3(1)/2004, dated 13-11-2009 as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner herein has made an application for grant of quarry lease in an extent of 10.00 hectares in Sy.No.367 of Somavarappadu village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District for colour granite. The second respondent-Director of Mines and Geology, the competent authority, rejected the application of the petitioner vide proceedings No.37324/R3(1)/2004, dated 13-11-2009, recording a finding that the same area has been considered by the Government for grant of mining lease for Nepheline Syenite in favour of the fourth respondent- company. Against the said orders, petitioner is stated to have filed a revision petition before the first respondent as early as on 21-12-2009 and it is the grievance of the petitioner that so far no orders have been passed on his revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on record Memo No.18033/M.II(1)/2009-1, dated 15-02-2010, wherein Government has addressed to the Director of Mines and Geology referring to the revision petition of the petitioner dated 21-12-2009. As per Rule 35-A of Andhra Pradesh Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 framed under Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, against an order of Director of Mines and Geology, there is a remedy of revision to the Government. When such revision is preferred by the petitioner as early as on 21-12-2009, there is no reason for not considering the same. In view of pendency of revision petition of the petitioner, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent-revisional authority to pass appropriate orders in the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the orders of respondent No.2-Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.37324/R3(1)/2004, dated 13-11-2009 within two months from today. Needless to observe that before passing orders in the revision petition, Government will issue notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent-company. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) February 22, 2011 NOTE: Issue C.C. in a week B.O. MRR