IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.291 of 2008 Between: M/s. Jumbo Mining Limited Visakhapatnam. ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. N. Shoba Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Pannala Srinivas The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.291 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash Memo No.13029/M.II(1)/2007, dated 27.12.2007 of respondent No.1. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease for colour granite in respect of 20 hectares in Sy.No.1/1 of Chinnagorrigadda Village, Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 05.09.2006. Prior to the petitioner’s application, respondent No.4 applied on 05.08.2006 for a similar purpose in respect of 14 hectares. The said application was apparently returned for compliance of certain defects. Respondent No.4 resubmitted the application on 18.09.2006. At the hearing, it has come out that out of the area of 14 hectares for which respondent No.4 initially applied, 7.457 hectares overlaps with the area leased in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the grant in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.4 filed a statutory revision under Rule 35 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1966 before respondent No.1. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 allowed the revision filed by respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.4 afres hin accordance with law. Sri Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.4, fairly stated that since the Writ Petition is pending for a long time and his client does not intend to indulge in long draw litigation, he is prepared to accept the extent of 6.543 hectares, which is available from out of the extent of 14 hectares for which respondent No.4 has filed its application on 05.08.2006. The learned counsel further stated that to this effect respondent No.4 also submitted its sworn affidavit before respondent No.2 on 04.10.2010. Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that her client has absolutely no objection for the course suggested by the learned counsel for respondent No.4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology also conveyed his no objection for this request. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 having succeeded before respondent No.1 has limited its claim to a part of the area which he applied for, after excluding the area for which quarry lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, I find the request made on behalf of respondent No.4 as very reasonable and justifiable. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the request of respondent No.4 for grant of quarry lease in respect of 6.543 hectares in Sy.No.1/1 of Chinagorrigadda Village, Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass an appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.302 of 2008 and 6991 and 9336 of 2011 and WVMP.Nos.421 and 2554 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.06.2011 ES