IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 9447 of 2005 Between: Smt. Pallapu Manjula W/o.Late P.Laxminarayana R/o. Venkayalapadu Post Yedla Padu Mandal , Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P Rep by its Prl.Secretary. Industries & Commerce (Mines -II) Dept Secretariat , Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology Guntur. 3 The Station House Officer P.S.Yellapadu , Guntur District. 4 Sri.Pallapu Sreenivasa Rao S/o.P.Venkata Rayudu R/o.Upparapalem Village (Via) Vankayalapadu Post & Mandal Yedlapadu Mandal , Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 May be pleased to issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus , declaring the action of the 2nd and 4th respondent in not allowing me to quarry the mineral as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit me to quarry the mine in Sy.No.240/10, situated at Vankayalapadu, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District as per the 1st respondent Proceedings dt.23-8-2003 for further 10 Years up to 2013, with all other consequential benefits , monetary and other wise and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9447 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the second respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur in not allowing the petitioner to quarry the mineral in Sy.No.240/10 of Vankayalapadu, Yedlapadu Mandal, Guntur District pursuant to the lease of mining granted to him is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also challenges the alleged interference by the fourth respondent herein. This Court, while directing Rule nisi, by order dated 26-04-2005 directed the second respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s mining operations except in accordance with law. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, it is stated that as per the order of renewal, the petitioner’s lease is in force up to 25-08-2013 and that the Department has never interfered with the quarrying operations of the petitioner. It is further stated that on a request made by the petitioner alleging interference by the fourth respondent, who is the brother of her husband, the official respondents addressed a letter to the Circle Inspector, Chilakaluripeta Police Station marking a copy to the Station House Officer, Yedlapadu to take necessary action against the fourth respondent and to protect the leasehold rights of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the alleged interference by the respondents 1 and 2 is without any basis and unfounded. So far as the fourth respondent is concerned, it appears that O.S.No.314 of 1996 before the Court of District Munsif Chilakaluripeta is pending. It is always open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law so far as his grievance against the fourth respondent is concerned. Accordingly, recording the statement of the second respondent that the official respondents are not interfering with the mining operations of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 27-11-2008 KLP