IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.23217, 23765, 23766, 23929, 23930 and 24173 of 2008 W.P.No.23217 of 2008 Between: Smt. K. Rama Lakshmamma … Petitioner And The Govt., of India, rep., by its Secretary Ministry of Mines, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy Sri C. Ramesh Sagar Counsel for respondents 2-4: AGP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.23217, 23765, 23766, 23929, 23930 and 24173 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy and Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the order of respondent No.2 rejecting their mining lease applications for iron ore in Bukkapuram Village, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District. This Court, by order dated 23.10.2008, suspended the impugned rejection orders and directed the respondents to process the petitioners’ applications afresh without reference to the ground of rejection mentioned therein. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that purporting to comply with the order of this Court, respondent No.2 passed fresh orders, after the petitioners filed contempt cases, once again rejecting their applications on different grounds and that questioning the said rejection orders, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.13698 of 2009 and batch, which are stated to be pending. In my opinion, with the passing of fresh orders by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners’ applications on grounds different from the one on which the previous rejections were made, the cause in these writ petitions does not survive for adjudication. As the petitioners have already filed fresh batch of writ petitions questioning the fresh orders of rejection passed during the pendency of these writ petitions, they are entitled to pursue the said writ petitions. Disposal of these writ petitions would not in any way prejudice their interests in the said writ petitions. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, all the miscellaneous applications, pending in the respective Writ Petitions, stand disposed of. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.08.2010. ES