THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15498 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State. This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Anantapur Mining Corporation, Bellary represented by its Partner Smt.G.Lakshmi Aruna seeking mandamus declaring the Memo No.910/M-III(1)/2008, dated 27.05.2010 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Department-first respondent, as illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and malafide. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner can be permitted to lift iron ore from the mines or from stockyards at various places pending further orders to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (C).No.7366-7367/2010. The case has a chequered career. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.723, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 25.11.2009 suspending the mining operations of the petitioner-company. The said G.O came to be questioned in W.P.No.26083 of 2009. The matter has gone to the Supreme Court once against the interlocutory order passed by this Court and second time against the final order passed in the writ petition. Further details of the case are not required to be mentioned in view of the order proposed to be passed. It is suffice to say that the Government issued Memo dated 27.05.2010, which reads as hereunder: “In the reference 3rd cited, the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad has stated that M/s.Anantapur Mining Corporation has paid the Advance Royalty of Rs.65,50,000/- and submitted application in Form-A and requested the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur to issue transit forms for 10,000 Mt’s of Lumps and 30,000 Mt’s of Fines from their mines for sale to M/s.JSW, Tornagallu and for export. Further, M/s.Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd., have also requested the Assst. Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur to issue Transit Forms/Transit Passes for the surrendered quantity and expired Transit Passes. Therefore, the Director of Miens & Geology has requested the Government to issue further instructions in the matter. Government, after careful examination of the matter, observe that the Government of A.P., filed SLP Nos.7366-7367 of 2010 against the orders of the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., striking down G.O.Rt.No.723, Ind&Com Dept., dt.25.11.2009. In the said SLP, after issuance of notice, from time to time specific interim orders have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the issues raised in the said SLP, including the validity of the said G.O.Rt.No.723 is sub-judice, in view of the pendency of the said SLP, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Even in the latest interim Orders dated 10.05.2010 issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India there is no direction for lifting and transporting of the stocks either from the mines or from the stockyards, which had been suspended by G.O.Rt.No.723, in view of the report of illegal mining. Hence, no permission can be granted by the Government for issuance of permits in order to lift and transport the stocks either from the stock yards or from the mines, at this juncture. Therefore, the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad is requested to instruct the officials concerned accordingly and to refund the advance royalty of Rs.65,50,000/- paid by AMC, in anticipation of the Transit Forms and take necessary action accordingly.” The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Supreme Court permitted the writ petitioner-company to carry on mining activity within the undisputed area and the very permission indicates that the writ petitioner can transit the ore excavated from the undisputed area to the stocking point etc. The learned counsel made much emphasis at paras 11 and 12 of the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7366-7367 of 2010, which reads as hereunder: “11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. K. Parasaran, Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, ably assisted by their juniors vehemently contended before us that the final Report filed by Survey of India would reveal that respondent No.1-Company cannot be blamed at all as it has neither encroached nor has done any mining operations out of the leased area. Therefore, they have contended that no prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners to stop the mining operations even now. It was also contended by them that the time has now come when equities are to be worked out and looking to the international contracts entered into by respondent No.1 with various international Companies, this Court should allow the mining operation, at least from those areas which can be said to be undisputed. 12. It was also suggested during the course of the hearing by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that in any case, they would not carry out mining operations within 100 to 150 metres from the Karnataka border as has been shown in the base map filed by Survey of India on 4.5.2010 (Annexure 'A') which shall form part of this order. It was also submitted by them that to safeguard the interest of the petitioner-State, they would erect a barbed wire fencing throughout Karnataka border with regard to those leases which are abutting Karnataka border 150 metres away from the same and in any case, would not carry out any mining operations in those areas or other disputed areas till final demarcation of boundaries is completed.” The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that subsequent to the memo challenged in the writ petition, another letter dated 14.06.2010 has been addressed to writ petitioner advising the petitioner-company to demark the area of 150 Mtr from Inter-State boundary and from the disputed areas in the Mining Lease areas on the ground and furnish the sketch for identification of the area. The learned Advocate General further submits that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP, either of the parties would be at liberty to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for any further order, and not by way of separate writ petition. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the writ petitioner-company to carry on mining activity in the undisputed area. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautiously indicated in para 17 of the order dated 10.05.2010 that for any clarification, the parties would be at liberty to approach it for further directions. In view of the specific order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that it is not proper for this Court to clarify whether the permission granted to the writ petitioner-company to carry out the mining operations in the undisputed area includes transport of ore extracted from the mines to the stocking point etc. The writ petitioner is at liberty to seek necessary clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 02.07.2010 Note: issue CC in two days B/o. va