HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19971 OF 2009 Dt.17.9.2009 Arza Premakar … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Dept., Hyderabad and three others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19971 OF 2009 O R D E R: Heard the counsel. The matter is coming up for admission. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.21038/R1-2/2008, dated 02.12.2008 and in L.Dis.No.21038/R1-2/08, dated 23.1.2009 and the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.3471/Q2A/2007, dated 3.2.2009 in rejecting the quarry lease application of the petitioner dated 10.9.2007 for grant quarry lease for road metal and building stone in over an extent of 20.00 Hects. In Sy.No.70 of Makavaram village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in contravention of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 and A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and consequently direct the respondents to grant quarry lease on his application dated 10.9.2007 and pass such suitable orders. It is stated that the petitioner applied in Form B-1 for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone in over an extent of 20.00 Hects in Sy.No.70 of Makavaram village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is also stated that the Tahasildar issued No Objection Certificate in Letter L.Dis.No.738/2007/E, dated 29.9.2007. The 3rd respondent directed to conduct resurvey on the letter of the petitioner dated 10.9.2007 for rejection and application of K.V.R.Raju for grant of quarry lease. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 3.2.2009 as explanation furnishing is not convincing. Further it is stated that the 2nd respondent has granted quarry lease in favour of K.V.Ramakrishnam Raju for colour granite vide proceedings No.21038/R1- 2/2008 dated 02.12.2008 and the said quarry lease was granted on the letter, dated 29.01.2009 of said K.V.R.K.Raju. The third respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for quarry lease without quoting any reasons. It is brought to the notice of the Court that in similar factual situation, Writ Petition No.11329 of 2009 had been disposed of as hereunder: “It is brought to the notice of this Court that, earlier, in the same factual background, when the application of the similarly situated person for grant of lease in respect of the very same land and for the very same purpose was rejected, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.No.4595 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 05.03.2009, has disposed of the same as under: “Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 2.000 hectares in Sy.No.70 of Makavaram village, Anakapalli Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, along with all other eligible applicants, without reference to the impugned order dated 03.02.2009, by taking into account the fact that the said Ramakrishnam Raju sought revocation of the lease granted in his favour, and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.” In view of the above, this Writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. No order as to costs.” In the light of the same, this Writ petition is also disposed of in the terms of the aforesaid order specified supra. No order as to costs. ______________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 17th September, 2009. Rns