THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25172 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 7th respondent in interfering with the Mining operation of the petitioner in an extent of Acs.6.14 cents in Survey No.138/3 of Rayavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District though lease exists till 21.10.2019, without manner of right, show cause notice or giving opportunity of being heard, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.7 not to interfere with the petitioner’s quarrying operation in respect of Acs.6.14 cents in Survey No.138/3 of Rayavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District.” On the application submitted by the petitioner on 24.03.2009, he was granted lease for quarrying slate stone in the land covered by Survey No.138/3 and 4 of Rayavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, by the third respondent – Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, vide proceedings, dated 11.06.2009. It is stated that based on the said proceedings, a lease deed was executed on 22.10.2009. The leases are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. As per the Rules, as and when application is submitted, the revenue authorities are to be addressed with regard to category, classification and availability of the land for grant of quarry lease. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that the application of the petitioner was considered with reference to the no objection certificate issued to some other applicant, by name, M/s.Trimex Minerals Private Limited, as early as on 27.10.1993. It is not known when the application was submitted by the petitioner in 2009, how it was considered based on the no objection certificate issued in favour of the third party in 1993. Subsequently, it was found that in the meantime, the land in question was allotted for construction of school buildings and the seventh respondent – Tahsildar, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, addressed to the authorities of Mines and Geology Department informing the same. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that an inspection was made pursuant to memo, dated 05.05.2010, issued by the third respondent and it was found that very close to the quarry lease area, buildings have come up for the purpose of running a girls school, as such, proceedings are initiated for determining the lease and accordingly, a show cause notice, dated 05.10.2010, was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above said show cause notice was served on the petitioner after filing this writ petition and the petitioner is taking steps for submitting explanation to the same. As much as the lease was granted to the petitioner without obtaining a fresh certification/no objection from the seventh respondent with regard to the category, classification and availability of the land in question and as it is stated that the buildings have come up near to the leased area and if the quarry lease operations are allowed, it is danger to the school-going children, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner as prayed for. However, as it is stated that already proceedings are initiated for determining the lease and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.10.2010, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit explanation to the same within a period of two (2) weeks from today, if not already submitted. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider such explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to him. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th JANUARY, 2011. kvni