IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23494 OF 2009 Dt.02.11.2009 Between: Banoth Veeru Naik … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce (SPIU & Sand) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Ravinder Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: G.P. for Industries and Commerce THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23494 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) In this public interest litigation, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dt.24.7.2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby extension to the extent of 125 days has been granted to respondent No.4 for carrying on mining activity and the lease has been renewed for the second year upon payment of the lease rent with 20% enhancement. Upon going through the impugned order, we find that respondent No.4 was prevented by an order passed by respondent No.1 from carrying on the mining activity for a period of 125 days during the period when respondent No.4 was granted the mining lease in an earlier year. Therefore, respondent No.4 had made a representation dt.3.7.2009 to the effect that without any fault on his part, he was prevented by the Government authorities from carrying out the mining activity for 125 days and therefore he should be granted an extension for the said period so as to compensate him. Hence, after considering the representation, by the impugned order, extension of 125 days has been granted to respondent No.4. In our opinion, the said extension cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, upon payment of the lease rent with 20% enhancement, renewal of lease for second year is granted to respondent No.4, which is also in accordance with relevant rules. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in this petition and therefore the petition is rejected. As a sequel to rejection of the petition, W.P.M.P. No.30509 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, stands rejected. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02.11.2009 bnr