IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14859 of 2009 Between: D.V.S.Gopal Rao S/o. Bhaskar Rao R/o. H.No. 4-46-9/1, Peda Waltair Junction Visakhapatnam ( A.P). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revisional authority / Mines Tribunal Government of India, Shastri bhavan, New Delhi. - 110 011 2 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad ( A.P.) 3 Sri. Beela Srinivasa Rao S/o. Sri. Surya Narayana R/o. Kota Veedhi Chodavaram Village & 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 pass an order or direction or writ more appropriately, A Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the Revision Petitions No. 2(14)2006-RC-II and consequential Revision Petition No. 2(2)2008-RC-II which were filed questioning the grant orders passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the said Revision Petitioners No. 2(14)2006-RC-II and consequential Revision Petition No. 2( 2)2008-Rc-II forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the 2nd respondent-Government, vide Memo dated 04.11.2006, granted provisional mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 14.09.2007 granting mining lease to the petitioner for Semi Precious Stones over an extent of Ac.57.17 cents of land in Sy.Nos.77, 78 & 87 of Chintapaka village, Butchaiahpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for a period of 20 years. While so, the 3rd respondent filed Revision Petition No. 2(14) 2006-RC-II questioning the Memo issued by the Government and obtained stay of the provisional lease. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed another Revision Petition No.2(2)2008-RC-II seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.246, and both the revisions were clubbed together and are pending before the 1st respondent. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent is not disposing of the revision petitions, as such, he has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Mines appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material placed on record. Since the Revision Petitions said to have been filed by the 3rd respondent are pending adjudication before the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Revisional Authority/Mines Tribunal is directed to dispose of both the Revision Petitions said to have been filed by the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law, 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 24th July, 2009 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow B/o bcj