THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.4443 of 2009 02-02-2010 BETWEEN; Kusuma Sathaiah ...Petitioner vs. Government of A.P. Industries and Commerce Department rep. by its Secretary and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.4443 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) It is stated by Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel for th petitioner that he has received instructions from the petitioner fo withdrawal of the writ petition. This court however declines grant o permission to withdraw this writ petition filed in public interest. The petitioner assails the order passed by the 1st respondent in th impugned memo dated 03-01-2009 for grant of extension of lease in favou of the 4th respondent to conduct quarrying operations from package No. as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the A.P. Minor Minera Concession Rules,1966 (for short “the 1966 Rules). By the impugned memo the 1st respondent, in purported exercise o powers conferred by Rule 9-K (3) of the 1966 Rules accorded permissio to the 4th respondent to operate the sand quarry at package No.6 Bobbarilanka/Peravaram/Rajavaram, Athreyapuram Mandal, Eas Godavari District for a period of seven (7) months from the date of receipt o the order, beyond the total period of two years for which the lease wa initially granted. This court in the judgment dated 25-01-2010 in W.P.No.7777 of 200 interpreting the provisions of the 1966 Rules, in particular Rule 9(L) an 9(K)-3 has held that no power inheres in the State to grant extension o leases beyond the period stipulated in the Rules. In the light of the judgment of this Court referred to above, th impugned memo cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 2ND FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR