IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23539 of 2001 Between: R.Kashiramulu S/o.Kondaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Governement of A.P. Rep.by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce M.II Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology A.P., B.R.K.Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Dept.of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR MINES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside memo dated 02-05-2001 issued by respondent No.1 and to direct the respondents to grant mining lease to the petitioner over an extent of Acs.22.70 cents in Survey No.252/1 of Nerella Village, Dharmapuri Mandal of Karimnagar District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and perused the record. The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease in respect of limestone over an extent of Acs.50.00 of land. Subsequently, he reduced the extent to Acs.22.70 cents. After issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner’s application. This order is questioned in this writ petition. In its rejection order, respondent No.1 stated that the petitioner ﬁled the application for grant of mining lease in his individual capacity for the purpose of supplying mineral to the cement companies and not for captive purpose and that the same is contrary to the existing guidelines. G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 19-02-1997 issued by respondent No.1 contained guidelines for grant of mining lease in respect of limestone. In respect of cement grade limestone, the said G.O provides that in future only applications made in the name of Companies, for whose captive purposes the mineral is intended, will be considered. Admittedly the petitioner did not apply for mining lease in the name of a Company for captive purpose. In view of the speciﬁc guidelines contained in the said G.O, the validity of which is not questioned in this writ petition, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1, impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th November, 2008 vrn