HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.18126 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease in an extent of 8.000 hectors of land covered by Survey No.58/P of Budawada Village, Chimakurty Mandal, Prakasham District. It is stated that the petitioner has paid requisite fee towards the application and also made necessary deposits. On the application of the petitioner, respondent No.2 – Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, Prakasham District, addressed a letter to respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District, for issuance of no objection certificate after verifying the availability and classification of the land for grant of quarry lease. It is the grievance of the petitioner that pursuance to the said letter addressed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 is not sending report/no objection certificate directly to respondent No.2 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28-05-1998. 3. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce appearing for the respondents that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.23363 of 2010, dated 28-09-2010. 4. I have perused the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the issue, which arises for consideration in the present writ petition, is covered by the above said order of this Court, this writ petition can also be disposed of following the said order. 5. In view of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010, dated 28.09.2010, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to send his report/recommendations in the matter directly to respondent No.2 as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28-05-1998, as expeditiously as possible. It is, however, made clear that whether the petitioner is entitled to quarry lease or not is a matter to be considered independently by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J June 30, 2011. KTL