HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17576 OF 2009 Dt.25.8.2009 B.Gopal … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II)(1), Hyderabad and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17576 OF 2009 O R D E R: The matter is coming up for admission. Heard Sri V.L.Surendra, the learned Counsel representing petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. The writ petition is filed, for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent, in rejecting the stay application in the Revision Petition No.9590/M.II (1)/2009-1 which is pending before 1st respondent against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide No.9852/R5-1/2006 dated 7.6.2009 in determining the quarry lease even after paid of all the mineral Revenue dues and there after the 3rd respondent has issued the dispatch permits as on the date of filing the Revision filed before the 1st respondent is bad and illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently permit the petitioner to continue the quarry operations pending the revision application before the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent shall also issue the permits to the petitioner for dispatch of the quarried mineral over an extent of 1.000 hectors in Sy.No.1/1 & 295 of Agraharam village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such a suitable orders. It is stated that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 1.000 hector in Sy.No.1/1 & 295 of Agraharam village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District for a period of 20 years by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.33329/R4-2/2004, dated 9.2.2005. Thereafter the 3rd respondent executed the lease deed vide proceedings No.2293/Q1/2004, dated 23.3.2005 after complying all the payments and issued work orders. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent issued the show cause notice for the above lapse. Soon after receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner paid the dead rent for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 along with the interest on 17.4.2007 including other charges. It is also stated that the petitioner paid all the dues long back including the interest and other charges and the petitioner was regularly issuing the permits by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner conducting the quarry operations regularly the 2nd respondent surprisingly issued determination order for the lapse of not paying the advance dead rent for the year 2006-07 which is already paid long back. Immediately after receipt of the said order the petitioner filed the Revision Petition No.9590/M.II (1)/2009-1 before the 1st respondent on 10.7.2009, due to lack of proper legal knowledge the petitioner could not file the application for stay. Thereafter the 3rd respondent prevented him from conducting quarry operations and refuse to issue dispatch permits. Subsequently the petitioner filed the stay application through his advocate on 17.8.2009 and sought stay of the 2nd respondent proceedings, but the 1st respondent refuse to pass any stay orders in his stay application. It is stated that when the revision petition is pending, granting of stay and rejecting the stay application cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the other merits and demerits. But, however, in the facts and circumstances, let the first respondent dispose of the Revision Petition No.9590/M.II (1)/2009-1 at an early date within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then the action under challenge in the revision is hereby stayed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 25th August, 2009. PNV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.17576 OF 2009 Dt.25.8.2009