IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3195 of 2007 Between: P.Muthu Swamy S/o.T.Goundru R/o.perecherla village, Medikondur Mandal Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur Region 5-90-65,4/2, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur-522007 2 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, 3rd line Navabharath Nagar, Guntur-1 3 Zilla Parishad, Guntur, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer Guntur, Guntur District 4 V.G.T.M., Urban Development Authority, Divisional Office Guntur, rep.by its Vice chairman, Guntur, Guntur District ..RESPONDENTS 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 1st and 2nd respondents in not granting the Quarry lease in favour of the petitioner herein to an extent of 1.80 acres in Sy.No.581 part of Perecherla village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District is illegal, and void and opposed to Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to grant quarry lease to the petitioner herein for a period of 10 years. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PANNALA.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr. M.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.4:Smt K.Aruna The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner for an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of land in Survey No. 581 part of Perecherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant quarry lease in his favour for a period of ten years. According to the petitioner, initially he made an application on 23-11-1991 before respondent No.2 for grant of quarry lease of the land in Survey No.581 part of an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of Perecherla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District. The same was forwarded to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, by his proceedings dated 17-12-1991, granted lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years and the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with respondent No.2 from 30-12-1991 to 29-12-1996. Before expiry of the said lease period, the petitioner made a representation on 10-10- 1996 seeking extension of the lease for a period of ten years. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 15-12-1996. After taking into consideration all the relevant records and the reports, respondent No.1, by his proceedings dated 16-12-1996, extended the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years and the petitioner entered into a lease agreement commencing from 01-01-1997 to 31-12-2006. According to the petitioner, he filed an application on 19-12-2006 for renewal of the lease for a period of another ten years. On the said application, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 19-12-2006 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Guntur, with a request to give no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for a period of ten years on the ground that the land in Survey No.581 of Perecherla Village is classified as Zilla Parishad’s land. The same is also referred to the VGT, Urban Development Authority The grievance of the petitioner is that till now neither no objection certificate is issued in his favour nor respondents 1 and 2 extended the lease. Hence, the writ petition. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No.3 respectively denying the allegations made by the petitioner and further ascertaining that Zilla Parishad is the owner of the property in question and unless and until it gives consent, respondent No.1 has no authority to renew the lease application of the petitioner purported to have been pending with him. There is no necessity to go into all the details. The only controversy is whether the petitioner is supposed to get no objection certificate from the Zilla Parishad and other authorities as required by respondents 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, there is no such requirement under the law, whereas Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that there is such a necessity. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition itself is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the renewal application made by the petitioner on 19-12-2006, after issuing notice to all the parties concerned and hearing them in detail, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner within the said period. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dated 2nd Feburary, 2009 Note: Issue C.C in three days vrn