IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1983 of 2009 Between: N.Md. Zaheer S/o.N.M.Akbar R/o.D.No.2-1-20/6, Opp: William Moon High School, Hyderabad Road, Tandur, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Director of Mines and Geology, BRKR Building, 8th Floor, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad. 5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad. 6 The Forest Range Officer, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 7 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Tahsildar, Peddimul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dt. 26.02.2008 issued by the Respondent No.6 and interfering and stopping the quarry operations of the petitioner conducted in pursuant to the quarry lease granted in Sy.No.19 of Athkur Village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in over an extent of 2,000 Hects, by the Department of Mines & Geology as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, A.P. Mines & Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently call for the records and set aside the notice dt. 26.02.2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was granted two quarry leases, under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The first lease was over an area of one acre of land in survey No.19 of Athkur Village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, the fourth respondent herein, vide proceedings, dated 22.01.1999. The second lease was in respect of one hectare of land in the same survey number vide proceedings, dated 08.07.2002 by the same authority. The leases are for a period of 15 years from the date of sanction. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner faced interference with the officials of the Forest Department, respondents 5 and 6 herein. Thereupon, he filed W.P.No.22445 of 2002. An order was passed on 13.01.2008, directing that a joint survey be conducted with the participation of officials of the Forest, Revenue and Mines and Geology Departments and if it is found that the area leased out to the petitioner is in the reserve forest, necessary proceedings shall be initiated for cancellation of the lease; and if it is found that it is not part of reserve forest, respondents 5 and 6 herein shall not interfere with the mining activities of the petitioner. A contempt case was filed alleging non-compliance with the directions issued in W.P.No.22445 of 2002. Recently, the sixth respondent issued a notice, dated 26.02.2008 to the petitioner requiring him to stop quarry in survey No.19, alleging that it is part of reserve forest. The petitioner challenges the action of respondents 5 and 6 in interfering with the quarry operations. Heard Smt.N.Shobha, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Industries and learned Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.22445 of 2002, almost with the similar complaint. With a view to put an end to the controversy, this Court directed joint survey with the participation of the officials of Forest Department. It is not even asserted by the petitioner that such a survey was conducted. As long as survey is not conducted, it cannot be said with certainty, whether quarry being operated by the petitioner is within the reserve forest or not. The only course possible, in the circumstances, directed by this Court does not appear to have been taken to its logical conclusion. In the absence of any undisputed material as to the location of the quarry, this Court cannot grant any specific relief to the petitioner. He has to take steps to get the directions issued in W.P.No.22445 of 2002 implemented in its letter and spirit. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to take steps for implementation of the course of action indicated by this Court in its order, dated 03.02.2003 in W.P.No.22445 of 2002. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.02.2009. GJ