IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 278 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/01/2009 in WP NO : 1251 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Lam Labour Contract Co-Op. Society Ltd., represented by its President Shaik Sadik, Lam Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur-7. 2 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, having office at 1/1, Ramannapet, Guntur- 3 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No :278 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.1.2009 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1251 of 2009. The appellant is the writ petitioner who filed the aforesaid writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2009, before the learned single Judge challenging the proceedings bearing No. 5641/Q1/2006, dated 9.1.2009 of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein, in determining the quarry lease of the appellant-society. The learned single judge found that against the order dated 9.1.2009 of the 1st respondent, the appellant has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the appellant without exhausting the said remedy, preferred the writ petition. On that ground, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition through the order impugned in this writ appeal and in view of the specific plea of the appellant that the order dated 9.1.2009 has not been given effect to, suspended the impugned order for a period of four weeks. Admittedly, against the order dated 9.1.2009 of the 1st respondent, the appellant has an effective statutory remedy of appeal and the appellant filed the writ petition without exhausting the said remedy. Since the appellant filed the writ petition without exhausting the remedy of appeal, the learned single judge rightly relegated the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal. Further the interim suspension granted by the learned single judge also stood expired. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single judge. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has requested the Court to grant some more time to file the appeal. Accordingly, while disposing of the writ appeal, we grant two months time to the appellant to file appeal against the order dated 9.1.2009 of the 1st respondent. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 19th March, 2009 __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J pnb