THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10008 OF 2010 Dated 21st July, 2010 Between: M.Devappa …Petitioner And The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology And two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.V.Narayana Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G.Arun Kumar The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to accord and sanction second renewal of quarry lease to respondent No.3 for quarrying operations of limestone slabs over an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.129/21 (new) 129/1 (old) of Ogipur Village, M.R.Tandur, Ranga Reddy District under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. I have heard Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to be a member of Ambedkar Quarry Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Ogipur Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He has pleaded that the Mandal Revenue Officer assigned an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.129 to respondent No.3 and a patta certificate was also issued for carrying on agricultural activity thereon. The petitioner, however, alleged that respondent No.3 has converted the agricultural land for non-agricultural operation i.e., for mining of limestone over an extent of Ac.1.00. At the hearing, Sri G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3, raised the objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner. He further submitted that his client was granted quarry lease for limestone on 18.04.2000 for a period of 10 years and that as the lease period was coming to an end on 25.04.2000, he had made an application for renewal of the same and that to pre-empt his client’s application for renewal, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court on his locus to question the entitlement of respondent No.3 for renewal. The petitioner has claimed that he is a member of the Ambedkar Quarry Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Ogipur and that the mining activity being carried on by respondent No.3 is adversely affecting the members of the Society. When questioned about the locus of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Ambedkar Quarry Labour Contract Cooperative Society has also filed a separate writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.16849 of 2010 for the same relief, which is claimed in the present writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner, being the member of the said Society, cannot maintain a separate writ petition dehors the Society for the same relief, for which a separate writ petition was filed by the said Society. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of lack of locus on the part of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition with liberty to the Ambedkar Quarry Labour Contract Cooperative Society to pursue its writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.12863 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2010 vrn