IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30789 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Dinesh Das & Soins Mines and Steels (P) Ltd., AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner states that respondent No.1-Government had granted a mining lease for Quartz to one M/s.Atyam Agro Products (P) Ltd., for a period of 20 years over an extent of Ac.20-00 in survey No.1 Gottivalasa Village, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Petitioner is stated to be the transferee of the unexpired portion of the said lease, which was approved by the Government under the proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.164 of the Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 30.07.2008 and permission for mining was accorded to the petitioner by respondent No.8 vide his proceedings, dated 23.07.2008. Petitioner states that he has been carrying out mining operations since then. Petitioner, however, required blasting permission for mining and for that purpose, he made an application dated 19.10.2011 before respondent No.2. It is stated that respondent No.2 has already called for reports from respondent Nos.3 to 7 and all of them have conducted appropriate enquiry and submitted reports to respondent No.2 recommending grant of permission. However, alleging that no orders are being passed by respondent No.2 on the petitioner’s request, the present writ petition is filed. Copy of the petitioner’s application dated 19.10.2011 addressed to respondent No.2 is produced along with the writ petition as Ex.P1. Since it is stated that the reports are already received by respondent No.2 from respondent Nos.3 to 7, the decision is required to be taken by respondent No.2 on the petitioner’s request as already more than three years have passed since he applied for no objection certificate.
3. Though the writ petition was adjourned twice, learned government pleader was unable to get instructions in the matter.
4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider petitioner’s application, referred to above, in the light of the reports received from respondent Nos.3 to 7 and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 6, 2014 LMV