HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2011 Dt: 20.12.2011 Between B.V.Subba Rao …Appellant AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 08.06.2011 passed by the learned Judge in WVMP No.1061 of 2009 in WPMP No.6527 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.4979 of 2009. 2. The appellant was granted a lease for quarrying granite in respect of Ac.2.50 cents in Survey No.118 of R.L.Puram in Prakasam District. 3. Against grant of the lease, respondent No.3 filed a statutory appeal under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The appeal was allowed by respondent No.1 by an order dated 14.05.2007 and the grant of quarry lease in favour of the appellant was set aside. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that in the meanwhile as soon as the lease was granted on 12.01.2007 his client began quarrying for granite. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 tells us that the quarrying stopped on 29.01.2007 pursuant to the stay granted in the appeal filed by respondent No.3. In other words, the quarrying went on for hardly about 15 days or so. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2007, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.11388 of 2007. This writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration. 6. Respondent No.3 preferred Writ Appeal No.421 of 2008 against the order allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant but that writ appeal was dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, when the matter came up for reconsideration before respondent No.1 on remand by a learned single Judge of this Court, a fresh order was passed on 17.02.2009 by respondent No.1 confirming its earlier order thereby cancelling the lease granted to the appellant. 8. The appellant then challenged the second order passed by respondent No.1 by filing Writ Petition No.4979 of 2009 out of which the present proceedings have arisen. 9. The learned single Judge hearing W.P.No.4979 of 2011 granted an interim stay on 13.03.2009 and this resulted in the appellant being allowed to quarry the granite on the land in dispute. 10. Respondent No.3 thereafter filed an application for vacating the interim stay and by the order under appeal, the learned single Judge vacated the interim stay and dismissed the application filed by the appellant for an interim order. 11. The learned single Judge found that perhaps the appellant may have a prima facie case in his favour but had not been able to make out any balance of convenience or any irreparable injury caused to the appellant. Consequently, there was no reason for continuing the interim order. 12. It is submitted before us by learned counsel for the appellant that his client had been quarrying the granite for about 2½ years while the matter was pending before the learned single Judge and therefore he may be allowed to continue to quarry the granite. 13. We are not impressed by this argument at all. We may mention at this stage that learned counsel for respondent No.3 disputes the fact that the appellant was carrying on quarrying pursuant to the interim order granted by the learned single Judge. In support of this, learned counsel for respondent No.3 says that no permit was granted to the appellant to carry on the quarrying and in any case, respondent No.3 was in possession of the land and therefore appellant could not carry on the quarrying activities. 14. Without going into these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that since the appellant was unsuccessful on two occasions before respondent No.1 in the statutory appeal filed by respondent No.3 under the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, there was no prima case made out by the appellant for being permitted to do some quarrying. 15. The order passed by the learned single Judge on 13.03.2009 was an ex parte order and merely because the appellant continued or is said to have continued to do quarrying activities as a result of the ex parte order does not mean that the appellant has been able to make out a prima case, or that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the prayer of the appellant being granted. 16. We also find that no irreparable injury has been caused to the appellant in as much as the dispute is really one involving money and that apart, the quarrying lease granted to the appellant is for a period of 20 years. As far as the financial aspect is concerned, the appellant can always make up the loss, if any, and also, if it is permissible, get an extension of the lease in view of the litigation pending in this Court. 17. In any event, we do not find that the situation so far as the appellant is concerned is irreparable. 18. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal against an interim order. 19. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Dt: 20.12.2011 VGSR/TNB