IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10532 of 2009 Between: The Lam Labour Contract Co-Op. Society Ltd., represented by its President, Shaik Sadik, Lam Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur-7. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur-7. 3 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 4 The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing No.17567/GTR/AH/2009, dated 16.05.2009 of the 4th Respondent-Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad refusing to stay the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 09.01.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO.10532 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even though an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner on 3.5.2009 against the order dated 9.1.2009 of the 1st respondent before the 4th respondent together with a stay petition, the 4th respondent has not passed stay orders on the said petition. Hence, the petitioner-society is deprived of its legitimate right to continue quarry operations. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the 4th respondent to dispose of the appeal itself maintaining stay of the proceedings which are already under challenge. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks and till the disposal of the appeal, there shall be stay of the operation of the order dated 9.1.2009 of the 1st respondent, which is appealed against. No costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: 28th May, 2009 Pnb/sur