THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4830 of 2007 Dated:09.03.2007 Between: M/s.Sri Vani Granites. … Petitioner AND Govt. of A.P., and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4830 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a Partnership Firm. It was statedly granted mining lease by proceedings dated 28.02.2005 over an extent of 2.25 Hectares in Survey No.109 of Mamidipalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The lease is for a period of fifteen years. It appears, on a report given by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Department, the third respondent initiated action under Rule 26(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,15,83,000/- being seigniorage fee and penalty thereon for 23,400 cubic metres of mineral allegedly extracted by the petitioner illegally. The petitioner denies the allegation of extracting the mineral outside the quarry lease area. Be that as it is, aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 09.11.2006, the petitioner herein preferred a revision petition under Rule 35-A of the Rules before the first respondent. The revision was filed on 15.11.2006. He alleges that the hearing was completed on 30.12.2006, but orders are not yet passed, and in the meanwhile, the third respondent declined to grant dispatch permits for removing the mineral. In this Writ Petition the petitioner therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting dispatch permits as illegal and arbitrary. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Industries, this Court is convinced that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. When once the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy under Rule 35-A of the Rules, a Writ Petition would not lie. Secondly, if the petitioner was not granted dispatch permits, it is always open to it to approach the first respondent for appropriate orders pending the revision petition. When the revision petition is pending, on the ground that the third respondent failed to give dispatch permits, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus as prayed for. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.03.2007 vs