IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.4696 of 2010 Between: Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract (General) Co-operative Society, reptd., by its President Sri K.Konda Reddy. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., reptd., by its Secretary (Mines), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pannala Srinivas. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in entertaining and processing the applications of third parties, without following the mandatory provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short “the Rules”), as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, representing the respondents. The petitioner was granted mining lease for extracting the mineral ‘slate’. The mining lease expired in the year 1987. The petitioner has not applied for renewal of the lease. The respondents have received applications from three persons for grant of lease in respect of the said mineral. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have not notified the area in question for grant of fresh lease as required under Rules 59 and 60 of the Rules, and, therefore, entertainment of three applications by the respondents even before issue of such notification is illegal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.419, Industries and Commerce (DM.II) Department, dated 18-12-1992, issued under Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules, whereby the area previously held by the petitioner under lease was notified. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, having perused the said notification, fairly conceded to this fact. In view of the same, the premise on which the Writ Petition is filed is proved incorrect. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner except directing the respondents to consider the applications received by them from the third parties along with the application, if any, received from the petitioner, for grant of mining lease in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:11-3-2010 MNR