IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2010 Between: Y. Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad rep., by its Secretary & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines & Geology This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2010 ORDER:- The petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of sand reach No.5 of Kollipara Village and Mandal, Guntur District, which was notified for auction vide notice dated 24.01.2008. The auction was confirmed on 19.02.2008 and work order was issued by respondent No.2 on 23.03.2008. Successive writ petitions were filed questioning the said auction and the petitioner pleaded that for the period from 01.05.2009 to 02.02.2010 stay granted by this Court restraining him from carrying on mining operations operated. The petitioner’s application for extension of lease for non-operation period was rejected by respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, which is stated to be pending. In the meantime, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 05.03.2010 seeking to auction the leasehold rights on 22.03.2010. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that when the revision petition filed before respondent No.1 is pending, respondent No.2 is seeking to proceed with the proposed auction. The petitioner also submitted that the application filed by him for stay of auction is pending along with the revision before respondent No.1. Ordinarily, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to extend time for non-operation period in view of Rule 9(ii) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, but in this case the petitioner is pleading for extension on the ground that on account of the stay granted by this Court, he was disabled from carrying on mining operations. It is for respondent No.1 to consider whether the request of the petitioner for such extension is justifiable in law or not in the pending revision petition. According to the petitioner, if an auction is held pending the revision, the revision petition itself becomes infructuous. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till disposal of the revision petition, respondent No.2 shall not proceed with the proposed auction. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5307 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.03.2010 ES