IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8286 of 2010 Between: Goguladinne Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract (General) Cooperative Society Limited, Goguladinne Village, Markapuram mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. M. Vijaya Kumari for Sri M. Brahma Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-5: AGP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8286 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare G.O.Ms.No.419 dated 18.12.1992 of respondent No.1 without cancelling the leasehold rights of the petitioner society and the endorsement dated 10.03.2010 of respondent No.5 in returning the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease in respect of Sy.Nos.21 to 24, 26, 27, 29 to 31, 33, 34, 76, 78, 141 to 145 and 164 to 170 of Kethagudipi Village, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was granted a mining lease for slate over the land admeasuring Ac.67.95 cents in the abovementioned survey numbers. According to the petitioner, the lease, which was initially granted under G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 24.02.1977 for a period of 20 years was later renewed and that as the petitioner society was running in losses, it could not pay the rents demanded by the respondents. The petitioner averred that on 10.03.2010 it has applied for further renewal of the lease and that under the impugned endorsement dated 10.03.2010 respondent No.5 returned the application stating that its lease is not subsisting as the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.1245, dated 26.11.1988 cancelling the lease. It was further stated in the endorsement that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 18.12.1992 notifying the area for regrant. Questioning this endorsement, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s mining lease was declared as lapsed vide G.O.Rt.No.1245, dated 26.11.1988 and that subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 18.12.1992 the area was notified for re-grant. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. From the uncontroverted facts, referred to in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner’s lease was declared as lapsed in G.O.Rt.No.1245, dated 26.11.1988. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek renewal of a non-existent lease. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the abovementioned G.O., it would have been open to it to challenge the same. As a result of the petitioner’s failure to question the said G.O., the respondents have issued another G.O., i.e., G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 18.12.1992 declaring the availability of the said area for re-grant. For the abovementioned reasons, the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference of this Court and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10680 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.08.2010. ES