IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20084 of 2009 Between: G.Sudhakar and four others. … Petitioners And: The Govt. of A.P., reptd., by Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Srinivas. Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Mines and Geology for R.1 to R.3. Sri Challa Gunaranjan for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in permitting respondent No.4 to carry on mining activities for excavation of lime stone over 49.18 hectares of land in Survey Nos.571/2, 588/4, 5,6 and 7, 588/2B and 588/10-A of Polepally (Terala Panchayat and Village), Durgi Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. In their affidavit, the petitioners claimed that they are residents of Terala village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District. They felt aggrieved by grant of mining lease by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.4 over the land mentioned above. According to the petitioners, mining operations are resulting in emission of dust and smoke, causing health hazards to the residents of the nearby villagers, and it is also resulting in complete depletion of ground water. The petitioners claimed that they along with other villagers of Terala village made several representations to the official respondents, but the same did not yield any result. We have heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that before the impugned grant, respondent No.3 had held public hearing under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The report of respondent No.3, pertaining to the public hearing shows that some of the villagers of the surrounding villages and the representatives of respondent No.4 were present at the public hearing and the concerns expressed by the villagers were properly addressed by the management of respondent No.4. The said proceedings do not show that any of the writ petitioners participated in the public hearing and raised their objections. In our considered opinion, the petitioners, who failed to participate in the public hearing and raise their objections, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. The fact that none of the objectors had questioned the impugned G.O., shows that the real objectors did not have any objections against the grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No.4. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on behalf of the writ petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.19-10-2009 MNR