IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 9888 of 2008 Between: M/s. The Yeleswaram Quarry Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited (Regd. No. 281), Yeleswaram Village & Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. by its President, K. Prasad Babu, S/o. Guruvulu, Aged 28 Years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 The Tahsildar, Addateegala Mandal, Addateegala, East Godavari 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in not issuing temporary permits to the petitioner to an extent of Hc.0.500 Acres in Sy.No.54 of Yeleswaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District by extending the benefit of the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in memo No. 18399/M-II(1)/2008-2 dt. 29.03.2008 and Memo No. 31087/R2-1/06 dt. 04-04-2008 as highly illegal, arbitrary unjust, improper, and disciminatory and consequently direct respondents to issue temporary permits to the petitioner in respect of an extent of Hectors 0-500 Acres in Sy. No. 54 of Yeleswaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in not issuing temporary permits to the petitioner over an extent of 500 hectares of land in S.No.54 situated in Yeleswaram village, as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner-Yeleswaram Quarry Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited is that its 36 members including the petitioner-society are engaged in the business of quarrying road metal. In the year 1996, the petitioner applied to the 4th respondent-Asst. Director of Mines and Geology for grant of quarry lease for extraction of road metal over an extent of 500 hectares of land in S.No.54 situated in Yeleswaram village, East Godavari District for a period of ten years, and the 4th respondent granted lease in its favour. After expiry of the lease, the petitioner made an application for renewal and the lease was renewed from 23.11.2006 to 22.11.2016. While so, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology issued proceedings dated 24.10.2007 cancelling the quarry lease of all the lease holders. Then, some of members of the petitioner-Society filed certain Revision Petitions before the 1st respondent-Government, and the same are pending, and the 1st respondent, vide its Memo dated 29.3.2008, directed the 2nd respondent-Director of Mines and Geology to issue temporary permits to the leaseholders. The 2nd respondent further directed the 4th respondent to issue temporary permits to the leaseholders in the areas leaving 500 mts. safety zone. Then, the petitioner-society made a representation dated 21.4.2008 to the 4th respondent for grant of temporary permit. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the 1st respondent- Government directed the 4th respondent to issue temporary permits, the 4th respondent-Asst. Director of Mines and Geology is not granting temporary permit to it on the ground that its name is not included in the proceedings dated 29.3.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner did not approach the Government and file any Revision Petition, the authorities are not granting temporary permit to the petitioner to proceed with the quarrying operations. Maybe, it is true that the petitioner did not file any Revision Petition before the 1st respondent-Government, but once the 1st respondent-Government passed an order directing the 2nd respondent-Director of Mines and Geology to issue temporary permits, in my considered view, the benefit shall be extended to the petitioner also provided the petitioner’s quarrying operations are in safe zone. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to grant temporary permit to the petitioner to proceed with the quarrying operation provided it is within safe zone, and the same shall be subject to the result in the Revision Petitions pending before the 1st respondent-Government. No costs. _______________ 02.05.2008 bcj