IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11493 of 2009 Between: Singamreddy Chandra Mohan Reddy S/o.Late Subba Reddy R/o.Tollaganganapalle, Valluru Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Mines and Geology Department, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director. 4 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Kadapa. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.4.2009 for grant of temporary permits to the 3rd respondent to quarry sand from Pydikalva village of Valluru Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concessional Rules, 1966 and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to issue temporary permits to the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that though he made a representation, dated 27.04.2009 to the 2nd respondent-Director, Mines and Geology Department, requesting him to grant temporary permit to the 3rd respondent-A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited in respect of sand reach at Pydikalva to enable him to purchase sand from the 3rd respondent by paying seignoirage fee, the 2nd respondent has not considered it and passed any orders thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Since the representation dated 27.04.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Director, Mines and Geology Department, is directed to consider the representation dated 27.04.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th June, 2009 bcj