THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.258 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent did not comply with the directions issued by this Court in its order, dated 25.03.2010, in W.P.No.6693 of 2010. The petitioner is a lessee in respect of a sand quarry for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The controversy was about the renewal for the second year. On the ground that the petitioner did not make the payment of the next year’s rental within the stipulated time, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: (a) the petitioner shall be entitled to pay the amount demanded by the 4th respondent, through his notice, dated 04.02.2010, in two instalments – first on or before 15.04.2010 and second on or before 30.04.2010; (b) the respondents shall permit the petitioner to operate the sand reach till 30.04.2010 without the requirement of renewal of lease, since the amount deposited by the petitioner towards the first year lease is with the respondents; and (c) the right of the petitioner to operate the sand reach beyond 30.04.2010 shall depend upon the compliance with the conditions referred to above, and consequential renewal of 2nd year lease. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was permitted to carry the lease till 30.04.2010, he was not permitted to carry till 14.05.2011 by taking the plea that the lease was not renewed up to that date. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that condonation by the Government was necessary for delayed payment of the lease amount and it was only on 18.05.2011 that the Government accorded approval for the renewal of the lease for the second year condoning the belated payment. They further plead that the petitioner himself was of the view that till the renewal is granted, he cannot be granted waybills and accordingly did not apply for them till 19.05.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries. The directions issued by this Court provided for different phases. The first phase was that the petitioner shall be permitted to quarry the mining lease till 30.04.2010 on payment of the amount in two instalments. The petitioner does not have any complaint about it. The controversy is only about the working out of the third direction. This Court was not categoric as to the right of the petitioner for the period beyond 30.04.2010. It was to depend upon the renewal of the lease, which in turn is an exercise to be undertaken by the authority. No time as such was stipulated as to the renewal of the lease except that the payment of amount up to 30.04.2010 was directed to be treated as compliance. There can be other factors that need to be taken into account for renewal. Though there was no necessity for the licencing authority or for that matter the Director to seek the relaxation from the Government, it cannot be said that they have committed any contempt on that account. Hence, the contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies, if any, in law. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 25.07.2011. kdl