The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.17766 of 2006 Dated 5th July, 2010 Between: M/s.Sri Sivabalaji Mines & Minerals. …Petitioner And 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.4: Smt.N.Shobha The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.55, Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 03-03-2006, issued by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt.N.Shobha, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner, who made his application, dated 03- 08-2006, in response to notification, dated 29-06-2005, issued by respondent No.3, for grant of mining lease of iron ore, filed this Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No.4 under the impugned GO. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of notification, dated 23-06-1986, respondent No.4 has applied for grant of mining lease of iron ore over an extent of 1223.63 acres in Survey No.874, Thummaluru Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District, on 15-10-2003. It is further averred that by inadvertence and without realising that an earlier notification was issued in 1986, the impugned notification was issued in the year 2005, and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner applied for mining lease on 03-08-2006. Treating the application of respondent No.4 as valid, he was granted mining lease. It is further stated that as the second notification itself was irregular in the face of the first notification issued as far back as the year 1986, the petitioner was not entitled to apply and the only application, which was pending in pursuance of the earlier notification, was of respondent No.4, who was granted mining lease. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as his client was not aware of the facts pertaining to the issue of previous notification, he has filed the present Writ Petition. He further submitted that in view of the stand taken by the Joint Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the official respondents for refund of the amounts paid by him and also to avail further remedies, if any, available to him in law in the event of his request being not accepted by the official respondents. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.21974 of 2006 and WVMP.No.1966 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th July, 2010 lur