The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.8907 of 2008 Dated 27th July, 2010 Between: M/s.Kumaraswamy Silica Mines …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.3: Miss T.Balajayasree, Addl.SC for Central Government The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring memo No. 6842/Mines.I(2)/2008, Dated 02-4-2008, issued by the 1st respondent directing the Petitioner to show cause within (15) days from the date of the notice under Section4-A(3) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 as to why action shall not be taken to cancel/terminate the mining lease held for Silica sand over an extent of 137.183 Hectors in Sy.No. 695/2, 696 of Momidi Village, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District, by invoking the provisions under Section 4-A (1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation Act, 1957, as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of Section 4-A (1) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of Section 4-A (1) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act. 67 of 1957 ).” At the hearing, it has not been disputed that certain Writ Petitions, which were filed questioning the showcause notices, identical to the impugned showcause notice, were disposed of by this Court, without adjudicating the same on merits, on the view that the Writ Petitions were premature as the State Government, which issued the showcause notices has not passed a final order affecting the rights of the petitioners therein. At the hearing, Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the fact that this case is also similar to the batch of Writ Petitions, which were earlier disposed of by this Court vide Common Order, dated 21-07-2010, in W.P.Nos.10878 of 2008 and batch, however, tried to distinguish this case with the previous cases on the following grounds:- (a) The petitioner herein has not submitted its explanation so far unlike in the batch of Writ Petitions disposed of by this Court; (b) The GO, under which the petitioner was granted mining lease, and the survey numbers, for which such lease was granted, were incorrectly mentioned and; (c) When the petitioner approached the APIIC, it was informed that there is no proposal to cancel the lease in respect of the lands held by the petitioner. In my opinion, the above aspects would not make any material difference in the view taken by this Court that the Writ Petitions filed questioning the showcause notices are premature. All the above aspects mentioned by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can as well be brought to the notice of respondent No.1 and a plea for dropping further action as proposed in the impugned showcause notices can be made. Therefore, I do not find any reason to take a different view from the one already taken by this Court in W.P.Nos.10878 of 2008 and batch by Common Order, dated 21-07-2010. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to file its objections before respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. If such objections are filed, respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law before passing an order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 22-04-2008, is vacated and WPMP.No.11813 of 2008 and WVMP.No.2482 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th July, 2010 lur