HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 2716 OF 2008 Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of December, Two Thousand and ten Between: Y.Tirupathaiah Petitioners AND Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring action of the second respondent in issuing L.Dis. proceedings No.2923/Q2A/2006 dated 22.11.2006 and consequential proceedings in Memo No.15958/M. II(1)/2007 dated 30.1.2008 of the first respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the grant of quarry lease over an extent of 2.000 hectares in Sy. No. 24 of Bowlavada village, Anakapalli Mandal as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for the quarry lease over the said land. It appears that the petitioner was initially granted quarry lease for a period of ten years in an extent of 1.000 hectare, which was valid upto 21.4.2004. The renewal application was to be filed as per law 90 days prior to its expiry. It appears that the petitioner filed application 73 days prior to its expiry. Therefore, the same was rejected on 22.11.2006 on the ground that there was no No objection Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. In fact, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued such a certificate on 12.6.2004 itself i.e. two months prior to the rejection. Hence, this writ petition There is no necessity of going into all the details. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the teeth of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 12.6.2004, the renewal application submitted by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. Even assuming that the application is rejected for the purpose of renewal on any ground, the renewal application would have been treated as a fresh application and they could considered for the grant of lease against the 2.000 hectares of the land in Sy.No. 24 of Bowlavada village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that in view of the interim order granted by this court, no decision is taken over the 2.000 hectares of land, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, as of now. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the application dated 10.02.2004 treating it as a fresh application and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the interim order passed by this court shall continue. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu December 15, 2010 MAS