IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23025 of 2008 Between: Ambati Swamy ..... Petitioner AND 1.TheDirector of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and 5 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.K.Venkatesh Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: 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.2 and 3, in granting quarry lease, in respect of land admeasuring Hec.10.50 in Survey No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, to the petitioner pursuant to his application, dated 08-03-2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner made an application for grant of quarry lease for road metal over the above-mentioned extent on 08- 03-2006. On the basis of a report submitted by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 vide his order, dated 29-12-2007, rejected the said application after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on the ground that the Gram Panchayat concerned has not given its approval for grant of quarry lease. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.1, w h o vide proceedings No.21659/EG/A1/08, dated 04-08- 2008, allowed the same by observing that the petitioner has produced a copy of resolution, passed by the Gontivanipalem Gram Panchayat, giving no objection for grant of quarry lease over the above-mentioned extent in his favour. In the light of the said fact, respondent No.1 has set aside the order of respondent No.2 and remanded the matter to the said respondent for fresh consideration and to take necessary action. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of the petitioner’s application afresh, the present Writ Petition is filed. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. From the Order, dated 04-08-2008, of respondent No.1 referred to above, it is evident that the ground on which the petitioner’s application for quarry lease was rejected became nonexistent with the production of resolution of the Gontivanipalem Gram Panchayat conveying its no objection for grant of quarry lease over the subject land in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any perceivable reason for respondent No.2 to keep the petitioner’s application, for grant of quarry lease, pending despite Order, dated 04-08-2008, of respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology is unable to state whether respondent No.2 has disposed of the petitioner’s application. If the petitioner’s application has not, so far, been disposed of by respondent No.2, there is no justification for this inaction. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction of respondent No.2 to forthwith dispose of the petitioner’s application for grant of quarry lease over the subject land by taking into consideration the resolution of the Gontivanipalem Gram Panchayat produced by him before respondent No.1. He shall complete this process and communicate his decision to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.No.29996 of 2008, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 15th June, 2011 lur