IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15088 of 2009 Between: P. Prakash Rao, S/o. Late Madhava Rao, Hindu, R/o. H.NO. 31-136/1, Gouri Shankar Colony, Jadcharla, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahasildar, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahbubnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Assistant Director of MInes and Geology, Mahabubnagar 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in interfering in the mining operations at Quarry situated at Jadcherla Village & Mandal of Mahabub Nagar District in sy.No. 277, 278 and 279 in the to the extent of 1.6 hectors as illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.15088 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts to be a holder of mining lease for an extent of 1.6 hectares in Sy.Nos.277, 278 and 279 of Jadcherla Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The lease was granted by the State for a period of ten (10) years up to 10.04.2011 for quarrying stone and metal, under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 (for short “the Rules”), under an agreement with the State represented by the 4th respondent, dated 25-03-2003. The current lease period was renewed by the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 25-03-2003. While so, the petitioner alleges, the 1st respondent is “recently threatening the petitioner is stop mining operation and at the behest of 1st respondent some unknown antisocial elements is creating trouble to the petitioner by obstructing the vehicular traffic pertaining to the mining operations and thus causing huge losses to the petitioner.” Neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State is impleaded as a respondent to this writ petition. In substance what the petitioner alleges is unlawful interference by the 1st respondent, perhaps amounting to criminal trespass. Against such illegal interference, the petitioner may gainfully seek relief remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and if there be an imminent threat of dispossession, he may also seek dispensing with the notice under Section 80(2) CPC. As there is an alternative effective remedy available, this court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 28th JULY 2009 *TSNR