IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27998 of 2008 Between: T. Rami Reddy, S/o. T.Anki Reddy, R/o. Popuru Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, (PW), Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Joint Collectore, Krishna District. 3 Riyazuddin, S/o. Drrauddin, R/o. Bhavani Puram, Vijayawada, A.P., 4 The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Directo, Department of Mines and Geology, Nandigama, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondent in not protecting the standing paddy and Chilli crop of the petitioner is Suvey Number 149 2-B, Extent Ac.1-94 Cents, Sy.No.193 Extent Ac.1.22 Cents Sy.No.194 Extent Ac.0.85 cents Sy.No.1-2A Extent Ac.3.07 Cents etc situated at Popuru Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal Krishna District, and the action of the 1st and 2nd respondent is not directing the 3rd and 4th to set aside the proceeding of the 4th respodnent and not setting aside letter no.388/s/2008 dated 28-11-2008 of 5th respodnent as illegal, unconstitutional violative of ARticle 14, 16 , 21 300- A of the constitution of india and A.P. water land trees Act, 2002, and River conservztion Act, A.P., Minor Mineral concession Rules 1996 and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit sand quarrying by the respondents 3 to 5 and set aside the proceedings of the 5th respondent bearing No.388/S/2008 dated 28-11-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:(SC FOR A.I.C.T.E)K.RAMAKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- When this writ petition is taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court, on 29.12.2008, while ordering “Notice Before Admission” directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take necessary steps forthwith to protect the petitioner’s standing crops in the lands in question till they are harvested, and since the said order worked out for itself, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. In view of the above, no orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th June, 2009 bcj