IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18737 of 2002 Between: M/s. Keerthi Rocks (P) Limited Rep by its Managing Director B.Indira W/o.Late B.Chandra Nai Plot No.B-6, Industrial Estate, Chittoor. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Mines & Geology A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Asst. Director of Mines & geology Chittoor. 4 Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (MI) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 S.Babu Naidu S/o. Srinivasulu Naidu B.M.N. Complex, B.T.Road, Palamaneer (Post), Chittoor 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 issue a Writ, Direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings No.35234/r4-2/2001, dt.18.1.2002 issued by the Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and void. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S C.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.18737 OF 2002 ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.01.2002 whereunder the 5th respondent herein was granted a prospecting licence for Multi-colour Granite Stone over an extent of one hectare in the gap area of Thirumalrajapuram Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District for a period of two years. It is not in dispute that the licence in respect of the said land was originally granted to the petitioner herein and the same was revoked on the ground that the petitioner failed to execute a deed of licence. Aggrieved by the said order of revocation dated 2.3.2001, the petitioner herein filed a Revision Petition under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 which was also dismissed by order dated 14.12.2001. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.71 of 2002. In the meanwhile, the impugned order dated 18.1.2002 was passed granting prospecting licence over the area in question to the 5th respondent herein. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that W.P.No.71 of 2002 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15.11.2008 quashing the order dated 14.12.2001 and permitting the petitioner to file additional grounds in the Revision Petition within a period of four weeks and thereafter within a period of eight weeks Revision shall be disposed of after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. Thus, it is clear that the order of revocation dated 2.3.2001 is the subject-matter of the Revision Petition pending before the Government. Consequently, the order impugned in this writ petition shall be subject to the result of the said Revision Petition to which both the petitioner and the 5th respondent are parties. In the circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner and the 5th respondent to urge all the grounds in the Revision Petition pending before the Government. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.12.2008 gbs