THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8335 OF 2010 Dated 15th April, 2010 Between: M/s Vijaya Girijana Quarry Labour …Petitioner And The Director of Mines and Geology and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare notice dated 20.11.2009 and consequential order dated 29.12.2009 issued by respondent No.2 determining the petitioner’s lease for quarrying road metal over an extent of 1 hectare in Survey No.207/1 of Gontuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri B.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. The petitioner is granted lease for quarrying road metal over the abovementioned extent of land under lease deed dated 04.06.2008. On the ground that respondent No.4 has withdrawn the NOC, respondent No.2 has determined the lease. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 on 29.01.2010 and the same is stated to be pending. While the said appeal is pending, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the same relief, which has been claimed in the appeal. Ordinarily a person cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. Having filed the appeal, the petitioner shall pursue the same. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 per se lacks jurisdiction to determine the lease, as respondent No.1 is the competent authority for taking such an action. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute this fact. However, as the petitioner’s appeal is pending before respondent No.1, he is directed to consider this aspect apart from other grounds, if any, raised by the petitioner, while disposing of the appeal. As respondent No.2 does not appear to have jurisdiction to determine the lease, I deem it appropriate to direct that the order passed by him on 29.12.2009 shall not be given effect to till the disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10745 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2010 Note:Issue C.C in one week vrn