HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.A. No.109 of 2098 Date:12-2-2008 Between: M/s Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Vice President (Admn.) and Authorized Agent, Sri Srinviasa Murty, Modi Bhavan, Hospet Road, Allipur, Bellary, Karnataka State. … Appellant. and Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Commerce, New Delhi and others. … Respondents. :JUDGMENT: Per Anil R. Dave, CJ By virtue of this appeal, interim order dated 8.2.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.645 of 2008 has been challenged. The dispute pertains to excavation of mine in Anantapur District. It is not in dispute that Survey No.1 of Siddapuram Village was given on lease to the present appellant-original petitioner whereas Survey No.1 of Obulupuram Village had been given on lease to 11th respondent for the purpose of mining. There appears to be some dispute with regard to boundary between the said two survey numbers. When the writ petition was filed by the present appellant, on 21.1.2008, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of passing of the order regarding excavation of iron ore in Siddapuram village. By another order dated 24.1.2008, the learned Single Judge had also directed the District Judge, Anantpur to make local inspection of the area and file report before the Court as to the existing state of things within a period of one week. It appears that the District Judge, Anantapur, has submitted his report on 8.2.2008. The matter had again come up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 8.2.2008. On the said date, the learned Single Judge had considered the report of the District Judge. As per the report, the survey work was to be completed within a week from the date of submission of the report. After considering the report, the learned Single Judge had adjourned the matter for a week and the matter will now come up for hearing before the learned single Judge on 15.2.2008. In the meantime the learned Single Judge directed to maintain status quo, which has been challenged by the appellant- original petitioner in the present appeal. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. In view of the fact that an order of status quo had already been granted by the learned Single Judge on 21.1.2008 and the same had also been extended by order dated 8.2.2008, and, as the matter is to be heard by the learned Single Judge on 15.2.2008, by which time the survey work is likely to be completed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, we are of the view that it would not be in the fitness of things to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge at this stage. Since the survey work would be completed by 15.2.2008, we are sure that the learned Single Judge will get a complete picture on the said date with regard to the areas which have been given on lease to the appellant and the 11th respondent for excavation. In view of the above, we do not want to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. We are sure that the matter will be heard peremptorarily on 15.2.2008 by the learned Single Judge. The learned advocates appearing for the appellant and respondent No.11 shall extend their cooperation to the learned single Judge. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 12th February, 2008 GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J vtv