IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.35 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/01/2009 in WP No.345 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Choppella Venkateswara Rao, s/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Kommaraju Lanka, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary, Mines & Geology, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 2 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 G Durga Prasad, Contractor, Read No. 10, Vemagiri-Kadiapulanka, East Godavari District, Permanent Resident of Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.VIDYAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ ble Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) W.A.M.P.No.383 of 2009 is filed to vacate interim order, dated 23.01.2009 passed in this appeal. Heard Sri G.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the vacate stay applicant, Sri N.Vidyaprasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – writ appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondent Nos.2 to 5. The writ appeal has been filed against refusal of grant of stay by the learned Single Judge with regard to mining lease granted in favour of the vacate stay applicant. The grievance of the appellant in the Writ Appeal is that though he was prepared to file his sealed tender, his tender was not received on the ground that time for submitting the tenders was over. The learned Single Judge by his order under appeal while declining to stay the tender process, however, observed that any finalisation of the bid in favour of the vacate stay applicant will be subject to further orders in the writ petition. This Court while issuing notice in the Writ Appeal directed status quo to be maintained by order, dated 23.01.2009. The vacate stay applicant/respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.345 of 2000 pending before the learned Single Judge, filed a counter-affidavit wherein he denied the plea of the writ petitioner that his tender was not received. It is stated that the writ petitioner did not submit any tender nor he had purchased any application for submitting his tender. It is further stated that tenders were received till 5.00 p.m. on 31.12.2008 for conducting auction on 03.01.2009 and that the writ petitioner has not purchased any application for submitting the tender. Inasmuch as the writ petition is pending, we are not inclined to give any conclusive finding on the claim of the writ petitioner that he was unduly prevented from filing his tender. But, for the purpose of prima facie case and balance of convenience, we are of the view that stoppage of mining operations by the vacate stay applicant would cause irreparable injury to his interest. Therefore, we are of the view that balance of convenience lies in favour of the vacate stay applicant to permit him to carry on the mining operations which would be subject to the result of the writ petition. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The Registry shall post the writ petition for final hearing high up in the list before the learned Single Judge on 30.03.2009. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 12th MARCH, 2009. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J kvni