THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.21697 of 2009 Date : 26-4-2011 Between : Kolagatla Venkata Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.Sreedhar Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for Industries & commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P. for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 : G.P. for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.8 : None appeared 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. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in protecting the leasehold rights of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.11-05 cents in Sy.Nos.174/3, 175/P, 157/P, 158/1(P), 158/2(P) and 161/P of Kethagudipi village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of his representation dated 22- 9-2008. The petitioner averred that he was granted slate quarry lease over the above mentioned land for a period of ten years with effect from 25-7-2000. When the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2009 the lease was subsisting and it has expired on 24-7-2010. At the hearing, Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has already made an application for renewal within time and that the same has not been disposed of. He relied upon Rule 12(5)(h)(xi)(ii) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and submitted that as his client’s application has not been disposed of, there is a deemed renewal. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s grievance is that while the lease was in force, respondent No.8 has started unduly interfering with the petitioner’s quarry operations. On the representation made by the petitioner to the revenue authorities, an enquiry was stated to have been held by respondent No.6 and he has submitted his enquiry report in Rc.A/490/2003 dated 1-4-2006 to respondent No.4. In his enquiry report, respondent No.6 inter alia stated as under : “In respect of mining lease in S.No.158 and 161 relating to K.Venkatreddy, the sheep society members are objecting for quarrying. The lease holders are representing to allow them for quarrying in the leased area as they were paid royalty and other fees to the mining department. The period of quarry leases already granted are in force and they have to be decided by the mining Department. Hence the report of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology may be called for in the matter and necessary orders may be issued to solve the dispute between the Sheep Society members and K.Venkatreddy, the quarry lease holder.” The present Writ Petition is filed on the inaction of respondent No.3 in disposing of the petitioner’s representation and taking appropriate action thereon. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the fact that the petitioner was granted the mining lease has been admitted. Respondent No.3 has however denied receipt of the petitioner’s representation. However, along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has filed postal acknowledgement in proof of respondent No.3 receiving the petitioner’s representation. In my opinion, so long as the petitioner holds a valid lease, respondent No.3 is bound to protect his interests within the legal parameters. As the petitioner’s grievance appears to be legitimate, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the said grievance as reflected in this Writ Petition, even assuming that the representation of the petitioner has not been received by him and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the light of the findings contained in the report of respondent No.6 referred to above. As a sequel, WPMP No.28191/2009 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 26-4-2011 AM