HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Dated 19-10-2009 WRIT PETITON No.20414 OF 2009 Between: P.Chandu. …Petitioner. And: 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITON No.20414 OF 2009 ORDER: Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology takes notice on R.1 to R.3 and requests time to get instructions. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to carrying the business and not granting the permits to him to run the business in Sy.No.914939 Maklor Village and Mandal, District Nizamabad as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1), 300-A of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. Several facts have been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that on 4-2- 2005, the petitioner was granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal in Sy.No.939 of Maklor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District vide proceedings No.704/QL/2003 dated 4-2- 2005 for an extent of 1.00 Hector for a period of 15 years by the 3rd respondent. It is also stated that on 13-11-2006, the petitioner was granted quarry lease for the building stone and road mental in S.No.914 of Maklor village and Mandal, Nizamabad District vide proceedings No.2191/QL/2005 dated 13-11-2006 for an extent of Ac.1.00 Hector for a period of 15 yeas by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that a Criminal Case in Cr.No.203 of 2008 under Sections 447, 427 & 379 of I.P.C. was filed alleging that the petitioner has trespassed into the lands of one Boinapally Purushothoma Rao and his son. It is also stated that on 12.11.2008, official respondents, on complaint filed by the said persons have visited the lease land. Further, it is stated that a suit has already been filed claiming damages. On 14-09-2009, the official respondents came to the alleged land and stopped the work. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that without following the rules governing the field or the procedure, the respondents have stopped the issuance of permit which cannot be sustained. This Court is not inclined to express any view in this regard. Be that as it may, it is needless to say that the respondents are bound to follow the rules governing the field and also the procedure. Unless and until, such rules or procedure is followed, the stopping of work in such a manner is impermissible in law. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition be disposed of directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner in accordance with law till appropriate action is taken in this regard. It is made clear that the 4th respondent is at liberty to initiate the appropriate action in accordance with the rules governing the field or procedure and it is further made clear that till then, the operation of the work of the petitioner not to be stopped. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice P.S.NARAYANA Dated 19th October, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITON No.20414 OF 2009 Dated 19-10-2009