IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:2733 of 2002 Between: M/s.Prasanthi Granites, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri C.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Reddy, Thimmapuram Village, K.V.Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order, dated 16.08.2001 passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and perused the record. By proceedings, dated 04.11.1996, the petitioner was granted quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 2 hectares in the gap area of Kottalam Village, Yadamarri Mandal, Chittoor District, for a period of 15 years. The mining operations of the petitioner were intercepted by the Forest Department on the ground that the petitioner did not obtain necessary permission from the Government of India under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act’). In Writ Petition No.2541 of 1998 filed by the petitioner questioning the said interference, this Court passed order while disposing of the said writ petition on 03.02.1998, permitting the petitioner to make an application to the Central Government through the State Government for the required permission, with the direction that it shall not conduct mining operations. The petitioner was, however, permitted to lift the mineral already extracted and transport the same outside the forest area. On 18.10.2000, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why the quarry lease shall not be cancelled. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 cancelled it’s quarry lease by his order, dated 19.03.2000, against which, the petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No.1. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was making efforts to get the required permission for Forest Clearance from the Government of India, respondent No.1 kept the order of respondent No.2 in abeyance for a period of one year by memo, dated 14.07.2000 to enable the petitioner to pursue it’s application. Eventually, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 16.08.2001, dismissing the revision petition on the ground that even after lapse of one year after keeping the order of cancellation passed by respondent No.2 in abeyance, the petitioner has not reported any development regarding Forest Clearance and that it failed to avail the sufficient opportunity made available to it. Respondent No.1 also observed that continued keeping of the cancellation order in abeyance amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act. In the affidavit, the petitioner averred that respondent No.3 was not cooperating in getting his application processed and sent to the Government of India. The fact that the petitioner failed to get the approval from the Government of India for Forest Clearance, which is a sine qua non for operating the mine, is admitted. Respondent No.1, in all fairness, kept the order of respondent No.2 in abeyance for more than one year, while keeping the revision petition pending. As the petitioner failed to get the approval from the Government of India, it dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has not shown that it has pursued it’s legal remedy against respondent No.3 to make him act in accordance with his statutory duties in the matter of forwarding it’s application. If the petitioner had any legitimate grievance against respondent No.3, it should have taken recourse for redressal of such grievance, to appropriate legal process. As the petitioner failed to take any steps in that direction, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.3295 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni