THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27379 OF 2009 Dated 22nd March, 2010 Between: Smt S.Mehatab …Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and Four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.Kasim Saheb Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4: AGP for Industries and Commerce The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting mining lease as per petitioner’s application dated 30.05.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to grant mining lease. I have heard Sri D.Kasim Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s application for mining lease was returned to her due to several defects as enumerated in para 3 of the counter- affidavit. It is further stated that the petitioner failed to attend survey and inspection on 10.11.2009, the date proposed for the said purpose; that the survey and inspection was conducted by the Assistant Geologist and Surveyor in the presence of the petitioner’s representative on 20.11.2009 and that the petitioner’s representative failed to show the area applied for on the ground. It is further stated that basing on the report submitted by the Assistant Geologist and Surveyor, the Office of respondent No.4 submitted rejection proposal to the Government through the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology on 14.12.2009 and that the same is under process. From the stand taken by respondent No.4, as noted above, the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease is pending and no final order has been passed thereon. Inasmuch as the proposals were stated to have been sent to respondent No.1 on 14.12.2009, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 takes a decision on the basis of the material made available to it on the petitioner’s application. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application for mining lease, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If respondent No.1 takes a decision against the petitioner, the latter is entitled to avail her remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.35657 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd March, 2010 vrn