IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2636 of 2008 Between: M/s.Aditya Minerals (P) Limited, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, M.Ashok Musthapure S/o Thriyamback, Having its office at H.No.6-5-651, Hameedpura, Adilabad-504 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India represented by its Secretary Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Industries and Commissioner, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director, Mines and Geology, 8th Floor, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, H.No.6- 58/1, Janakaprasada Nilayam, Near Fire Station, Mancherial, Adilabad-504 208. 5 G.Venkateshwar Rao, S/o not known R/o Pippalgoan Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 order or writ one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents proposing to grant Prospecting Licence for Manganese Ore in favour of 5th respondent in over an extent of acs.995.22 in Sy.No.1 to 100 of Pippalgoan Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District and seeking prior approval of Government of India (1st respondent) in Lr.No.12102/M-III(2)/2007-1, dt.12-09- 2007 overlapping the area on lease held by the petitioner extent of acs.50.29 in Sy.No.32 to 35 of Pippalgaon Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District and proposing to grant Prospecting Licence as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently call for the proceedings in Lr.No.12102/M.III(2)/2007-1, dt.12-09-2007 set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2636 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Smt. N. Shoba, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite a current and operative mining lease in an extent of Ac.50-29 guntas in survey Nos.32 to 35, Pippalagoan village, Jainath mandal, Adilabad district in respect of a major mineral Manganese Ore, the fourth respondent had proposed to the third respondent who had recommended to the second respondent who forwarded the proposals to the first respondent for the grant of a Prospecting License in favour of the fifth respondent for Manganese Ore in an extent of Ac.995-22 in survey Nos. 1 to 100 of the same village and mandal. This proposal includes extents of land comprising an area granted to the petitioner by way of mining lease which is current and operative. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that by an administrative error, proposals were initiated and forwarded recommending grant of a Prospecting License in favour of the fifth respondent for extents in the area for which the petitioner had already been granted a mining lease and that on realization of this error, it has been rectified and the third respondent has submitted revised proposals deleting the extents in survey Nos. 32 to 35 of the village from the extent proposed for the fifth respondent by way of a Prospecting License. Consequent on such recommendations by the third respondent, the second respondent had also recommended to the first respondent accordingly. The learned Government for Industries and Commerce further submits on instructions from the second respondent that the said respondent had submitted revised proposals withdrawing the earlier proposals and 1st respondent has now proposed to the first respondent for grant of Prospecting License to the fifth respondent in extents which exclude the areas granted to the petitioner by way of a mining lease. In view of the above categorical submission made on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, recorded herein, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 04-04-2008 Pvks/*