The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24565 of 2007 Dated 16th June, 2010 Between: M.Appala Naidu …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: ----- Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6: Mr.O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in preventing respondent No.2 from interfering with the petitioner’s mining activities in pursuance of a valid lease, as illegal and arbitrary. For disposal of this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner was granted lease to quarry minor mineral i.e., road metal and building stone over an extent of 2 hectares of Boddavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for a period of ten years. According to the petitioner, on account of personal rivalry, some of the members of respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat started unduly interfering with the petitioner’s mining operations. The petitioner is stated to have lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Denkada Police Station, and that no action was taken thereon. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he inter alia mentioned that all the workers employed by the petitioner approached him with the complaint that they are being prevented by some people from carrying on quarry operations, and that the enquiry held by him in this regard revealed that due to village political factions, the owners of zeroithi land admeasuring Ac.2-35 cents in Survey No.107/1, which is situated adjacent to the quarry area, have decided not to allow transportation of quarry material by the petitioner through their lands. That said two persons viz., Suvvada Satyam and Chalamuru Satyam filed WPMP.No.35238 of 2007 seeking their impleadment as respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the Writ Petition on the ground that they are some of the owners of the above-mentioned lands situated adjacent to the quarry area and that the petitioner has been trying to transport the quarried material through the said lands without their permission. From the facts narrated above, the grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. He is questioning the inaction of respondent No.1 in registering the case on his report of interference by respondent No.2 and also of respondent No.4 in preventing members of respondent No.2 from interfering with his mining operations. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. Though served, respondent No.2 has not entered appearance. As the allegations made by the petitioner have not been controverted, it is reasonable to presume that some of its members, if not respondent No.2 as a body, appear to be interfering with the petitioner’s quarry operations. So long as the petitioner holds a valid quarry lease, no third party much less respondent No.2 or its members have a right to interfere with such quarry operations. Respondent No.2 and its members are, therefore, restrained from making such illegal interference. As regards the purported report given by the petitioner to respondent No.1, if no action is taken thereon, the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. With regard to the stand taken by the impleaded respondents viz., respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for them, submitted that purporting to act on the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No.4 has instructed respondent No.1- Police to permit the petitioner to transport the excavated material through the lands of respondent Nos.5 and 6. In my opinion, the interim order granted by this Court does not have the effect of permitting the petitioner to transport the material through private lands without the permission of the owners thereof. If the petitioner carries on such activity, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are always entitled to prevent the petitioner from undertaking such activity by following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 27-11-2007, is vacated and WPMP.No.31978 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th June, 2010 lur