IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13179 of 2008 Between: M.Venkateswar Rao S/o. Raghavaiah Dwaraka Tirumala-534426, West Godavari District. A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Government of Andra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Industries & Commerce ( Mines Department)-M III Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan Hyderabad. 3.Union Of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo.No.740/Mines.III(1)/2008-1 dated 14-5-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unconstitutional, without any jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 4-A(I) of the Mines and Mineral's( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 ( ACt 67/1957) and inm violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.13179 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the memo, dated 14.05.2008, issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction being contrary to the provisions of Section 4-A(I) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. At the out set, it is to be noted the impugned memo, dated 14.05.2008, is nothing but a show-cause notice, under which, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why the lease in his favour should not be terminated for the reasons specified thereunder. The petitioner states that he has already submitted an application on 09.06.2008 to the first respondent raising all the objections against the proposed action. If that be so, it is for the first respondent to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and in case any adverse order is passed, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same by working out appropriate remedy. As on today it cannot be said that there is any order adverse to the interests of the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is premature and cannot be entertained. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ 24.06.2008 VGB