IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10968 of 2009 Between: P. Lakshmi, W/o. P. Appa Rao, Residing at Door No. 1-94, Maturu Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mines & Geology Department, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not disposing the application of the petitioner dated 09-10-06 for grant of lease to quarry Road metal and Building stone under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 even after lapse of more than two and half years as being arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional of violation of article 19 and 300-A of constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she applied to the 1st respondent on 09.10.2006 through the 2nd respondent for grant of mining lease for quarrying road metal and building stone in an extent of 09.00 hectares in Sy.No.1 situated at Marturu village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent called a report from the 3rd respondent, who recommended grant of lease and issued No Objection Letter on 25.09.2007 to that effect. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of issuance of No Objection Letter by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent has not granted mining lease nor considered her application and passed appropriate orders thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3. Since the application/representation dated 09.10.2006 said to have been made by the petitioner for grant of lease for quarrying road metal, is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology is hereby directed to consider the application/representation dated 09.10.2006 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th June, 2009 bcj