IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY , THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15385 of 2004 Between: P. Venkatapathi, S/o Peddaiah, R/o Mallampeta Village,Donakonda (M), Prakasam District, rep. by his GPA Tanniru Harinarayana S/o Galaiah , 38 yrs, R/o Mallampeta Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Indusries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur. ' 4 Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Markapur, Prakasam District. 5 Mandal Revenue Officer, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 3 to 5 in interfering with the possession of the petitioner and threatening to dispossess him from the mining area in his occupation to an extent of Acs. 50-00 in Old.Sy.No. 125/1A corresponding new Sy.Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 272 and 273 , and Sy.No. 126/1 (Old) corresponding new Sy.Nos. 283, 284,285, 286, 287, 288, 291 and 292 of Donakonda Mandal , Prakasam District and equally the action of the first respondent in not granting renewal or a further period of 20 years and keeping the renewal application of the petitioner pending, as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and issue a consequential direction directing the first respondent to grant renewal of mining lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 20 years in the above said land Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.JAYANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.15385 2004 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner in Sy.No.125/1A and 126/1 to an extent of AC.50.00 situated in Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that pursuant to his application for grant of mining in respect of the above land, the 1st respondent granted lease in his favour for a period of twenty(20) years vide G.O.Ms.No.457, Industries and Commerce(Mines-II) Department dated.05-06-1978. Accordingly the petitioner carried out the mining operations and before expiry of the lease made an application for renewal of lease as contemplated under Rule24- A(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960. Though the petitioner made the said application for renewal within the stipulated period and pursuant thereto the respondents 3 and 4 conducted a field survey and submitted the proposals for renewal for a further period of twenty years, the 1st respondent failed to pass any order granting renewal. As per Rule.24-A (6) of the Rules since the lease in favour of the petitioner is deemed to have been extended, he has been continuing the mining operations and paying the dead rent to the respondents regularly. While so, the 5th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District started interfering with the mining operations and attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that by virtue of Rule.24-A (6) the petitioner is entitled to carry on the mining operations and the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 on 15-12-2004 stating that the petitioner made an application for grant of renewal in time and that he is entitled for extension of lease. However, no order could be passed granting renewal since the report is awaited from the 4th respondent. It is also stated that they are not interfering with the mining activity of the petitioner in any manner what-so-ever since he is entitled to carry on the mining operations till the disposal of his renewal application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology under instructions stated that no orders have been passed till today on the petitioner‘s application for renewal of lease. Rule-24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960 provides that an application for renewal of a mining lease shall be made at least 12 months before the date on which the lease is deemed to expire. Sub- Rule.6 of Rule.24-A further made it clear that if an application for renewal made within time is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. Having regard to the specific provisions noticed above and keeping in view the admitted fact that the petitioner made the application for renewal within the stipulated time and that the said application is not disposed of till today, the lease in favour of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been extended. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the mining operation of the petitioner in the land in question in any manner what-so-ever till appropriate orders are passed on the petitioner’s application for renewal. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 4th December,2008 *TSNR