IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28849 of 2009 Between: Sk. Abdul Azeez … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines II) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. K. Lalitha Counsel for respondents 1-4: GP for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri P. Roy Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28849 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 11.12.2009, whereby respondent No.1, while calling for report from the Director of Mines and Geology, respondent No.2, granted stay of mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, respondent No.3. I have heard Smt. K. Lalitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P. Roy Reddy for respondent No.5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the representation filed by respondent No.5 against the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner without insisting on availing of alternative remedy of appeal by him. The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent No.5, however, submitted that respondent No.1 is not precluded from entertaining the revision filed by respondent No.5 merely because a statutory appeal lies. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has granted stay of lease, pending the ‘representation’ of respondent No.5. Under Rule 35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, respondent No.1 is vested with the revisional power. Whether such power has been properly exercised or not is required to be examined in the light of the facts of each case. Since respondent No.1 entertained the representation in obvious exercise of its revisional power and granted interim order pending the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision/representation filed by respondent No.5 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.5. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.37463 of 2009 and 83 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.04.2010 ES