THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDAIAH W.P.NO.26042 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is M/s Manikyamba Sand Quarry LCC Society, Pasuvullanka Village, I Polavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and it is represented by its present – N.Narayana Murthy. The petitioner – society was the successful bidder in the auction held on 4.5.2009 to work for sand quarrying in Reach No.11, GLB, from 9.000 kms. to 19.400 Kms. ramp point at 19/000 – 19/2000 Kms. at Jonnada Village, Alamura Mandal, East Godavari District up to 31.3.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent – Obalanka Gram Panchayat, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District represented by its president, is illegally interfering with the quarrying operations and though they made representations to the 1st respondent, they did not take action and advised to proceed against the 2nd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The Panchayat Secretary, Obalanka Gram Panchayat, Ravulapalem mandal, East Godavari District, filed counter affidavit and stated inter alia that the petitioner under the guise of lease is carrying quarry operations within the limits of the Obulanka Gram Panchayat and hence they made representations to the Mandal Development Officer to fix boundaries to Jonnada sand reach and Obulanka Sand reach and accordingly, survey was conducted in the presence of Assistant Director of Mines, MPDO and the representatives of both the Gram Panchayats and it revealed that the petitioner is quarrying sand within the area of Obulanka Gram Panchayat. Along with the counter, the report of the surveyor and the sketch map is filed. Hence, the case of the 2nd respondent is that they are not interfering with the quarrying operations of the petitioner within the leased area and that the petitioners are illegally quarrying in Obulanka Grama Panchayat. With these averments the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 4. From the above averments, whether the 2nd respondent is interfering with the quarrying operations of the petitioner in the leased area or whether the petitioner is illegally undertaking quarrying operations in Obulanka Gram Panchayt, is a disputed question of fact, which this court cannot delve under the writ jurisdiction. 5. However, since the 2nd respondent categorically stated that the petitioner is carrying quarrying operations in Obulaka Gram Panchyat limits and the survey report and the map were sought to be filed and as they are made representations to the 1st respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from carrying out the quarrying operations within the leased area. 7. No order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------ 24—06—2010