IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12659 of 2008 Between: The Vamsi Krishna Nagar ST Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited, rep. by its President Anumula Vamsi Krishna, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Markapuram, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Pancom Business Centre, III Floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Mines & Mineral Development Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.P.RAJESWARI FOR MR.E.AYYAPU REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.V.SUBRAHMANYAM (GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, which is a Scheduled Tribe Labour Contract Co- operative Society, applied for development of Marble, Latirite, Calcite and Iron in Bayyaram Tribal area in Khammam District, in pursuance of notification dated 17.03.2005 issued by respondent No.1- Corporation. The petitioner averred that its President was directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 13.12.2006 and 14.12.2006 vide latter’s letter dated 05.12.2006 and that accordingly on 13.12.2006, its President appeared before the Committee headed by the Managing Director of respondent No.1 and produced all the necessary certificates. The petitioner has not received the decision on its application and its information revealed that some big companies like Zindal and Rus-Alkima are putting pressure on the respondents for granting lease to develop Bauxite etc., to them. The petitioner further averred that on 17.03.2008 it made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Mines & Mineral Development and so far no action is taken thereon. No counter-affidavit is filed by either of the respondents controverting the averments contained in the affidavit. Since the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is quite innocuous, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 17.03.2008, if not already done, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.16325 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.06.2009 va