IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25849 of 2008 Between: L.Pratap Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Building, 8th floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.G.Vijayalakshmi Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines & Geology The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition pertains to non-disposal of his application for renewal of quarry lease for road metal over an extent of Ac.5-00 in Government Mathruka Land of Alampally Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner was granted quarry lease for road metal in respect of the aforenoted area. It is not in dispute that after expiry of the original lease period, the lease was renewed and that period also expired on 05-12-2008. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, which is not disputed by the respondents, that a further application for renewal was made on 05-09-2008 i.e., 90 days prior to the expiry of the lease. As the said application has not been disposed of, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have resisted the relief claimed by the petitioner mainly on two grounds viz., (i) that under Rule 13 (2) of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), if the application for renewal is not disposed of within the regulated period, it shall be deemed to have not been renewed and; (ii) that an application for third renewal does not lie. In my opinion, both the stands referred to above appear to be wholly misconceived. Respondent No.3 has totally misconstrued Rule 13 (2) of the Rules, which provides for a deemed renewal in favour of the applicant till disposal of the renewal application, if the same is filed within the time and not disposed of. As regards the second stand taken by the respondents that an application for third renewal does not lie, under Rule 31 (XIV) (3) of the Rules, in case of leases for minor minerals useful for road metal ballast serving as a captive source for a crusher unit, the renewal may be granted as long as the crusher unit is in operation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running a crushing unit and therefore, the bar on a third renewal has no application to his case. For the above reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application for renewal of quarry lease in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations made by this Court. In view of the deemed renewal clause, the petitioner is entitled to quarry the road metal subject to his paying security and other charges till his renewal application is disposed of. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33820 of 2008, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd June, 2011 lur