IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 564 of 2009 Between: J.Sagar Rao S/o.J.Narayana Rao R/o.Vidyanagar, Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad rep.by its Secretary 2 The Asst.Director of Mines & Geology, Karimnagar .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the 1st respondent in not deciding the revision filed by me challenging action of the 2nd respondent in including Clause 8(IX) in the lease deed dated 12.9.2008 and consequential action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing way bills to me to quarry and transport sand on payment of seigniorage fee based on a memo dated 19.4.2007 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory violative of the rights accrued to me under the AP Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide case file by me. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 564 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not deciding the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in including Clause 8(IX) in the lease deed dated 12.9.2008 and consequential action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing waybills to the petitioner to quarry and transport sand on payment of seigniorage fee based on the Memo dated 19.4.2007, as arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The petitioner has already filed revision petition before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Industries and Commerce, Secretariat, Hyderabad being aggrieved by the inclusion of Clause 8(IX) in the lease deed dated 12.9.2008. According to the petitioner, the said revision petition along with the stay application is still pending and not disposed of. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petition purported to have been filed by the petitioner under Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 read with Clause VIII(X) of the lease agreement and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 20-01-2009. MVB.