THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26572 of 2010 Dated: 08.11.2010 Between: Y.Balathimmareddy. .. Petitioner. And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: The petitioner states that pursuant to the application submitted by him to the 2nd respondent, for grant of quarry lease in his favour for a period of ten years over the land to an extent of 0.500 Hectors in USBH (Un-surveyed Hill Block) area of Bhanumukkala village, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.09.2007, granting quarry lease in his favour. While so, on the ground that the subject land, in respect of which lease was granted in favour of the petitioner and nine others, belongs to the Forest Department, the 2nd respondent -Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, Kurnool District, issued proceedings dated 19.10.2009, canceling the quarry lease held by the petitioner and nine others. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision, under Section 35-A of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, along with stay application, before the 1st respondent-Government of A.P., on 21.10.2009, and the same are not yet disposed of. The petitioner contends that as no orders were passed in the Revision Petition filed by him till 18.01.2010, he along with nine other quarry leaseholders filed another application on 18.01.2010 before the 1st respondent, seeking an order of fresh survey of the whole Unsurveyed Hill Block in the presence of the officials of Forest Department, Revenue Department and also the Mining Department and that they also sought an incidental prayer of permitting them to carry on with mining operations till disposal of the revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that as no orders are passed till date with regard to granting permission to him to carry on with the quarrying operations in terms of the lease granted by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 07.02.2005 and the consequential agreement dated 07.02.2005 entered into by him with the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Mines & Geology, Forest and Revenue appearing for respondent authorities. Since the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent is pending before the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of either the revision petition itself preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 19.10.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent or the applications filed therein seeking interim reliefs as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 08.11.2010 v v