IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28575 of 2010 BETWEEN T. Bheemammma. ... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Tandur, R.R. District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Petitioner’s initial lease for Limestone Slabs for a period of ten years was from 26.04.2002 to 25.04.2010 and as such, she sought renewal for fresh term under his application dated 19.11.2009 and alleging inaction of respondents 1 to 3, she filed the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the learned Government Pleader pointing out that it was found that the petitioner had encroached beyond the lease area and therefore, she was made liable to pay seigniorage fee together with penalty and in view of the conduct of the petitioner in excavating the mineral from outside the lease area, the renewal application was proposed to be rejected and recommendations for that were sent to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, rejected the renewal sought for by the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 16.03.2011. 4. While this writ petition has been pending before this Court, in view of order passed by the Deputy Director in the interregnum, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of Mines and Geology against the said rejection. The said appeal has since been allowed by the Director conditionally by the proceedings No.11139/TDR/AH/2011 dated 21.11.2011 and as per the operative portion of the direction in the order of the appellate authority, the rejection of petitioner’s renewal application was set aside subject to payment of penalty amount by the petitioner in five equal installments commencing from December 2011 and payable on/before 15th of every month. It was further directed that on payment of the entire arrears by the petitioner, her application for renewal of quarry lease was directed to be considered. 5. In view of the said order of the appellate authority, petitioner’s application for renewal is, admittedly, pending and will be considered after the entire amount due from the petitioner is recovered. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner has already paid the first installment as per the order of the Director of Mines and Geology, referred to above, and that she is prepared to pay the balance outstanding amount on/before 31.01.2012 without availing four more installments granted to her and seeks a direction that his application for renewal be considered expeditiously. 7. It is evident from the order of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21.11.2011 that the direction to consider petitioner’s renewal application is only on recovery of the entire amount due from the petitioner. As such, as and when the petitioner remits the said entire balance amount, her application for renewal of the lease aforesaid shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed thereon expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 19, 2011 DSK