IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20439 of 2000 Between: S.N.Nityanandam, S/o Natarajan, R/o Catholic Road, H.No.78, Madras. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Mines & Geology, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Guntur. 3 The Assistent Director, Mines & Geology, Ongole. 4 The District Collector, Prakasam. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam. 6 M/s. Gayathiri Granites, Rep. by its Partner, V.Krishnaiah, S/o Not known, R/o Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in processing application of the 6th respondent for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease over an extent of 2-00 Hects. in Sy.No.55/4B, Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District and granting or proceeding to grant prospecting licence/mining lease to the 6th respondent or anybody in an extent of 39.56 cents in Sy.No.55/4B, Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District as arbitrary, illegal unjust and unconsitutional and conequently set aside the grant of lease if granted. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: G.P. FOR INDUSTRIES. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: MR.PANNALA.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20439 OF 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in processing the application of the 6th respondent for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease over an extent of 2.00 hectares in Survey No.55/4B, Rajupalem Lakshmipuram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District and granting or proceeding to grant prospecting licence/mining lease to the 6th respondent or anybody in an extent of Ac.39.56 cents in Survey No.55/4B, Rajupalem Lakshmipuram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought for to set aside the grant of lease, if granted. Admittedly, no mining lease/prospecting licence has been granted with regards this land either in favour of the 6th respondent or anybody else. The reason for respondents 1 to 3 not granting such a licence/mining lease is that they were injuncted from doing so by an interlocutory order in O.S.Nos.116 and 118 of 1992 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole, by order dated 12.08.1993. Smt. N.Shoba, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein were arrayed as defendants in the suit along with the oﬃcial respondents, and as respondents in the interlocutory applications, which resulted in the order of temporary injunction. She would further submit that, aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction, C.M.A.No.195 of 1998 and batch was ﬁled which was dismissed by order dated 30.04.1998 and, therefore, the oﬃcial respondents were precluded from granting a prospecting licence/mining lease in favour of anybody let alone the 6th respondent, at least till the suits were finally disposed of. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a reference is made to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.3719 of 1998 and batch, wherein this Court, by order dated 21.12.2001, is said to have made it clear that, till disposal of the suits, respondents 1 to 5 should not grant mining licence and, therefore, no applications were processed keeping in view the above orders. Sri T.Surya Satish, learned Government Pleader for Industries would submit that, in compliance with the order of this Court in the aforementioned C.R.Ps, respondents 1 to 3 do not intend granting prospecting licence/mining lease in favour of any person till the suits are ﬁnally disposed of. Learned Government Pleader would also place before this Court a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.4743 of 2002 wherein both Ganga Granites, of which the petitioners herein are partners, and the 6th respondent herein are arrayed as respondents and this Court by order dated 05.03.2002, while disposing of the writ petition, made it clear that, till disposal of the suits, respondents 1 to 3 herein, among others, should not proceed with grant of mining licence. In his counter aﬃdavit, the 6th respondent would submit that one Sri T.Subrahmanayam was among the seven pattedars of the land in this survey number, that he still retained his land in Survey No.55/4-B correlated to Survey No.51/B, that he died in the year 1995 and his sons Venkata Krishna Murthy, Venkata Satyanarayana and Venkata Ramesh Babu and his wife Suseelamma inherited the property and that they were in possession, that they constituted a partnership for utilizing the land and had entered into an agreement with the 6th respondent giving him their consent to operate a prospecting licence or a mining lease for extraction of granite. The 6th respondent would further state that the possession of the land was delivered on which there was a shed, that they are in possession of the extent and that they had applied for a ‘no objection’ certiﬁcate and grant of mining licence for an extent of 5 acres which is pending consideration. The 6th respondent would further state that the injunction granted by the Court below was beyond the scope of the suit itself and, since neither the 6th respondent nor Sri T.Subrahmanyam were parties to the suit, the said interlocutory order passed in the suit was not binding on them. Sri Pannala Srinivas, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent would vehemently contend that, while the 6th respondent could not claim grant of prospecting licence/mining lease as of right, a statutory obligation was cast on respondents 1 to 3 to process the application ﬁled by the 6th respondent and consider their case for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease in accordance with law. Learned Counsel would submit that no order can be passed by any Court asking public functionaries to disobey the law or from acting contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which are statutory in character. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the interlocutory orders go far beyond the scope of the suit, the said order cannot come in the way of respondents 1 to 3 from processing the application of the 6th respondent and in considering their case for grant of prospecting licence/mining lease. Learned Counsel would also dispute the petitioners’ claim to ownership/possession over the land in question and would assert that it is the 6th respondent who is in possession thereof consequent to an agreement entered into with the legal heirs of Sri T.Subrahmanyam, one of the erstwhile pattedars. The stand of respondents 1 to 3, as put across by the learned Government Pleader, is that no prospecting licence/mining lease would be granted in respect of these lands till the suits are disposed of. In view of this speciﬁc stand of respondents 1 to 3, the petitioners cannot have any grievance necessitating an adjudication by this Court. In so far as the contention put-forth by Sri P.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent is concerned, it must be borne in mind that it is not the 6th respondent who has sought any relief from this Court and, as such, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the said contentions on merits. Since respondents 1 to 3 have speciﬁcally stated that they do not intend to grant any mining lease/prospecting licence over the said lands till the suits are disposed of, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. In so far as the contentions raised by the 6th respondent is concerned, it would suﬃce to observe that this order shall not preclude the 6th respondent herein from availing such other remedies as are available to him in law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 14.11.2008 Note: Furnish Copy of the order in ten days. (B/o) GS