THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.29251 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner company seeking a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law, and forbear from interfering with its trading activity i.e. transportation of processed iron ore from the export division and the stock yard situated in Sy.No.67 of Obulapuram Village, D. Herihal Mandal, Anantapur District, without reference to the prohibitory orders contained in G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a private limited company and a mining lessee of iron ore in respect of land admeasuring 27.12 hectares of Sy.No.1(p) of H. Siddapuram village, D.Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District since 1962. The lease was extended from time to time and it is valid up to 2016. When M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited started exploiting iron ore from its mining lease area since 14.01.2008, it filed W.P.No.645 of 2008 before this Court seeking a direction to the State Authorities to take active steps to see that the mining operations of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited are restricted only to the area, for which it is having a mining lease in Sy.No.1(p) of Obulapuram village. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 15.10.2008, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the appropriate Authorities to conduct a survey for localisation and demarcation of the mining lease of both the companies. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009, suspending the mining operations, including transportation of already mined material from six mines, by the petitioner, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, and others. It is further stated that the petitioner has an Export Oriented Unit by name M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited (100% Export Oriented Unit) in Sy.No.67 of Obulapuram Village and it is engaged in purchase of rich iron ore, process and export of the same. As the iron ore so purchased from different sources is in its stock-yard and its mining lease has nothing to do with its export division, the stock of iron ore in its export division is not governed by the prohibitory orders contained in G.O.Rt.No.723 dated 25.11.2009. Since the respondents are not allowing the transportation and export of the stock of iron ore from its export division, it has submitted a representation dated 22.12.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting to permit them to remove the iron ore from its export division. But however, as no orders have yet been passed, it approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. 4. Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, has reiterated the contents putforth in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and submitted that though the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.12.2009 annexing all the documents establishing the fact that its export division is entirely a different entity which is not included in G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009, to the 1st respondent, seeking permission to remove the iron ore from its export division, the 1st respondent has not passed any order thereon so far, and on account of which, the petitioner is sustaining huge losses. 5. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has contended that as there is a discrepancy as to the extent of material that has been procured from outside sources and the details of the material so procured, the 3rd respondent was directed to send his remarks and as and when the remarks are received, appropriate orders would be passed. 6. The facts are not in dispute. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Rt.No.723 dated 25.11.2009 suspending the operations, including transportation of already mined material from six (6) Mines and the respective stock-yards at various places, pending appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on CEC report. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner is restrained from carrying on mining operations. 7. When once it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the export division of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Private Limited (100% EOU) is a different unit and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said export division and a representation to the 1st respondent has already been given by the petitioner as early as on 22.12.2009 categorically stating that its export division is incurring huge losses, on account of not permitting them to transport the processed iron ore, the Government should have passed appropriate orders. 8. In the light of the above, and now that the Government has come forward with a detailed counter- affidavit stating that the matter is in the process and as and when the remarks are received, it would pass orders, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation dated 25.12.2009 given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the 1st respondent seeks any clarification from the petitioner as to the details of the iron ore so procured, the petitioner shall furnish all those particulars to the 1st respondent, within a period of one week thereafter. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 1st February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.29251 of 2010 (Disposed of) 1st February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) CBS