IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26938 of 2011 BETWEEN M/s. K.K. Exports, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of AP, Rep, by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Hyderabad and seven others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHOBAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY GP FOR FORESTS MR. P. CHANDRA MOULI The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner’s basic grievance is that the petitioner’s appeal dated 30.12.2008 is pending with the second respondent and though the said appeal concerns the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the fourth respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of quarry lease for 3 hectares of various lands in compartment No.456 of Basavapalli Reserve Forest, Budipalem Mandal, Chittoor District, there is a contest for the petitioner’s application by the eighth respondent herein. While petitioner’s application is dated 09.08.2006 for the land, referred to above, the eighth respondent in his application dated 22.05.2006 has sought for extension of his existing lease. While it is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that the area applied for by the petitioner and the eighth respondent are separate areas and do not overlap, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, which is subject matter of the appeal before the second respondent held that these areas overlap and consequently, the petitioner’s application was rejected as it was later in point of time to that of eighth respondent. That very aspect is now questioned and is pending in the appeal ﬁled at the instance of the petitioner before the second respondent. The petitioner had approached this Court alleging that while the said appeal is pending steps are being taken for grant of quarry lease to the eighth respondent. 2. Counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the ﬁfth respondent and learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 also advanced their submissions in support of their case that their quarry lease application is required to be considered on priority as they ﬁled earlier to that of petitioner. 3. However, at para 10 of the counter aﬃdavit the ﬁfth respondent speciﬁcally states that the petitioner’s appeal against the orders of the fourth respondent dated 30.11.2008 is pending before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving notice to all the parties concerned preferably within four (4) weeks from today. In the interregnum, if the oﬃcial respondents consider grant of quarry lease in favour of respondent No.8 and/or 7 and 8, the competent authority shall notify the petitioner and after hearing him final orders be passed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 3, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 05.12.2011 (B/o) DSK