IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5226 of 2008 Between: S.Kota Reddy S/o.Penchal Reddy R/o.D.No.5-26/1 East Street,Guduru Nellore Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of India rep. by its Secretary Department of Street & Mines Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi 2 The Govt. of A.P Rep. by its Secretary Industries and Commerce Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director Of Mines & Geology BRKR Building 8th Floor Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 4 The Assistant Director Mines & Geology Nellore, Nellore Dist 5 Ch.Purshotham Reddy S/o.Brahma Reddy Yerukollu (V) & Post Duttalur(M) Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in granting mining lease in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents Sy.No.162/1 2 and 124/8 of Pathampalle and Venkatampeta(V) of Duttaluru(M) Nellore Dist to the 5th respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.123 Industries and commerce Department dt.26-05-2007 and the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing the Revision Application dt.01-12-2005 filed by the petitioner and not passing orders on stay petition as arbitrary illegal unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of A.P Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act 1957. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in granting mining lease in an extent of Ac.4.03 cents of land in S.Nos.162/1, 2 and 124/8 situated in Papampally and Venkatampeta villages to the 5th respondent and also the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the Revision Application dated 1.12.2005 filed by the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that he filed an application dated 27.9.2005 for grant of mining lease for Quartz and Mica over an extent of Ac.4.03 cents of land in S.Nos.162/1,2 and 124/8 of Papampally and Venkatampeta villages of Duttaluru Mandal, Nellore District, but the 2nd respondent-Govt. of A.P., refused to grant lease in favour of the petitioner vide its Memo dated 15.10.2005 on the ground that the Government decided not to consider any applications unless it resumes the assignments. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Application dated 1.12.2005 along with a stay petition, before the 1st respondent-Government of India, represented by Secretary, Steel & Mines Department, and the matter is pending. It appears that the 5th respondent gave an application on 6.9.2006 and the 2nd respondent-Govt. of A.P. proposed to grant mining lease to the 5th respondent vide its Memo dated 23.11.2006. Having come to know of the same, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent for impleading the 5th respondent herein as respondent No.4 in the Revision Application. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though he filed the Revision Application, dated 1.12.2005, no orders have been passed on it so far, and the 2nd respondent-Govt. of A.P. granted lease to the 5th respondent on 26.5.2007. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the normal circumstances, Notice shall be issued to the 5th respondent. However, as he is already a party in the Revision Application pending before the 1st respondent, this Court is of the view that such notice can be dispensed with. Inasmuch as the Revision Application before the 1st respondent is pending, this Court, without going into the merits of the writ petition, deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Govt. of India to hear both the petitioner and the 5th respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. In terms of the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 12.03.2008 bcj