IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20620 of 2008 Between: Sri G.Satyanarayana S/o.Naidu Jerripothupalem village Chintagatla Post, Pendurthi Mandalam Visakhapatnam-35 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce (Mines Department) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Visakhapatnam .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein i.e. the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam to grant quarry lease over an extentof 3.000 Hectares in Survey No.81/2 of Chintagatla village, Pendurthi Mandalam,Visakhapatnam District without any further delay and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20620 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 3 hectares of land in Survey No.81/2 of Chintagatla Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is stated that the revenue authorities have accorded clearance, duly collecting the relevant amount for it. The petitioner states that when the application was under active consideration, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, 3rd respondent herein, issued a show cause notice, dated 29.08.2008, requiring him to explain as to why the application shall not be rejected, on the ground that the land is under proposal for assignment to the poor, as house sites. The petitioner is said to have submitted explanation for the said notice. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and seeks a direction to the respondents to grant lease. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The very fact that the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, requiring him to explain as to why the application shall not be rejected discloses that the application was under active consideration. However, issuing a show cause notice for cancellation of application is somewhat unknown to law. Obviously, with a view to put the petitioner on notice, about the developments that have taken place, subsequent to the filing of the application, the 3rd respondent issued the notice. Be that as it may, once the petitioner had submitted his explanation, the matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the application of the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20620 of 2008 Date: 22.09.2008 JSU