HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25531 and 25532 of 2010 Dt:- 23.12.2011 Between:- The Marine Sand Quarry Boatsmen and fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., … Petitioner and Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary and others … Respondents This Court made the following:- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25531 and 25532 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: - Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus against the inaction of the Government in passing orders on the petitioner’s representations. Copies of the said representations are annexed to the material papers with translation, wherein the petitioner requested the Government to grant extension of lease to the extent of non-operation period on the ground that the Government has stopped quarry operations for 80 and 8 days in two different spells. The request for refund of the deposits is also made and reliance is placed upon a decision of Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.20575 of 2010, dated 21.09.2010, wherein it was directed that if the petitioner has made any representation, the respondents shall consider the same. Heard both the learned counsel. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents points out that the request of the petitioner is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.V.Siva Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh {2010(2) ALD 288}. The petitioner’s counsel states that various claims made in the representation of the petitioner cover the aspect of extension of lease as well as for refund of the deposits; and that even if there is a prohibition under Rule 9-L of A.P.Minor Minerals Rules 1966 (for short, “the Rules”), the Government is not precluded from considering the petitioner’s application. I am afraid the very contention is rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision referred to above, wherein it was held that the powers of the Government are limited to the extent provided under the rules and not ultra vires the rules. In that view of the matter while upholding Rule 9-L of the Rules, orders granting extension by the Government, was set aside. The said legal position settled by the judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and the petitioner is not entitled to seek any extension of lease on any ground whatsoever. The Government, therefore, rightly did not consider and pass any orders on petitioner’s applications as the same is not permissible and is now covered by decision of this court referred to above. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief. Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, apart from the relief of extension of lease, if the petitioner has any other claim such as refund of amounts, if any, he is free to make a representation to the Government, which shall be considered by the Government in accordance with Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 23.12.2011 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25531 and 25532 of 2010 23.12.2011 lmv