IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 23564 of 2004 Between: M/s Rayalaseema Granites, Rep.by its Managing Partner, B. Muthyalaiah S/o B. Adinarayana Chetty, R/o Vanayaka Temple Street, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industrial & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Mines & Geology Department, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Chittoor. 4 V. Sampath, S/o R.V. Raghavan, R/o NO. 22/2, Rangan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017. .....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directions, directing the respondents not to under take quarrying operation in S.No. 92/1 of Kuppaganipalli village, Gudipiala Mandal,by virtue of transfer of lease from M/s Rayalaseema Granites to M/s Unity Ent, Chennai by declaring the transfer of lease order passed by the 2nd res. In proc.No. 30621/R4-2/04 dt.13-10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.S.RAMA MOORTHY REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr.C.V.MOHAN REDDY The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents and with their consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of admission. Questioning the transfer of lease order passed by second respondent dated 13.10.2004 in favour of M/s Unit Enterprises, Chennai, the present writ petition is filed. It is stated that originally the petitioner firm was floated by one Mr.Raghupathi Naidu in the year 1987 for extraction of black granite and related activities and the firm was granted a quarry lease over an extent of 4-00 hects. in Survey No.92/1 of Kuppaganipally village, Gudipalli mandal, Chittoor district in the year 1994 for a period of 15 years. After the death of said Raghupathi Naidu, his brothers D.Hari, Dr.D.Madhavan and one Mr.C.P.Ramalinga Reddy became the partners of the firm. It is also stated that the petitioner having settled all the claims of the partners, has became the sole proprietor/managing partner of M/s Rayalaseema Granites. It is also stated that the petitioner appointed the fourth respondent as his rising contractor and financial partner and the same was intimated to the official respondents, and thereafter the firm was doing the business by investing huge amounts. It is stated that the fourth respondent colluded with the earlier partner of the petitioner firm Sri D.Hari, to transfer the quarry lease granted to the petitioner in favour of the fourth respondent, and accordingly, the second respondent by his impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2004 transferred the quarry lease of the petitioner in favour of the fourth respondent. It is also stated that challenging the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2004, petitioner filed revision under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 before the first respondent and since no orders are forthcoming, the present writ petition is filed. Fourth respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating he has entered into a lease agreement of operating quarry with M/s Rayalaseema Granites, rep. by its Propreitor Sri D.Hari and the same was approved by the Government of A.P. and that the said quarry lease is in valid till 31.8.2010 for quarrying black granites. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 against the Proceedings No.30621/R4-2/04 dated 13.10.2004 issued by the second respondent expeditiously, within a period of three weeks. If the revision filed by the petitioner is allowed, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the loss suffered by him on account of the illegal transfer of lease in favour of fourth respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J Date: 28.12.2004 Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow. B/o DA/KSR To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industrial & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Mines & Geology Department, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Chittoor.2 4 Two CCs to the G.P. for Mines & Geology, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two C.D.copies.