IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 11906, 12717, 12737, 12740 and 12809 of 2009 WRIT PETITION No.11906 of 2009: Between: D.Bhaskar Reddy, s/o.D.Bala Venkata Reddy, 53 yrs, Yagantipalli village, Banaganapally Mandal, Kurnool District … Petitioner And: 1. The Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Kurnool. 2. The Asst. Director, Mines & Geology, Kurnool. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, B.Camp, Kurnool. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Banaganapally village Mandal, Kurnool District. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Mahesh Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Mines & Geology for R.1 & R.2 GP for Forests for R.3. GP for Revenue for R.4. This Court made the following: HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY COMMON ORDER: (per ANIL R.DAVE, C.J.,) As facts of all these Writ Petitions are similar, at the request of the learned Advocates, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The grievance, which has been ventilated in each of these petitions, is that though the petitioners are having leasehold rights in respect of the land, which has been occupied by them for the purpose of mining, officers of the Forest Department are interfering with their mining activities. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, we found that Writ Petition No.12970 of 2009, which was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, was filed in this Court, wherein it was alleged that the present petitioners and some other persons were carrying out mining activities in the forest area. In the circumstances, a direction was given to ascertain whether the land, in which mining activities were being carried out, was in fact in forest area and for that purpose certain officers of the Forest Department must have visited the land occupied by the petitioners, where mining activities are done by them. Prima facie it appears that the Forest officers found that the land in question was forming part of forest and, therefore, show- cause notices dated 19-8-2009 had been given to all the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the lease in question should not be terminated because the land in question is in forest area. It would be open to the petitioners to give reply to the said show-cause notices. From the facts stated hereinabove, it is clear that there is no interference by the officers of the Forest Department as alleged in the petition. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the Writ Petitions and, therefore, all the petitions are rejected. Needless to say that till mining leases are legally terminated, the petitioners would not be restrained from carrying out their mining activities. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J., Dt.26-08-2009 MNR