IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 35860 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Allah Mohd. Bakshi 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. This writ petition complains of inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in passing appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation, dated 03.12.2012.
3. Petitioner states that he was granted a mining lease for Quartzite over an extent of 112.80 acres in survey No.425 of Chintakunta Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District for a period of 20 years and the lease deed was executed by A.D.M.G. Yerraguntla on 28.08.2004. While petitioner states that he started mining operations and already mined 1000 M.Ts. of Qaurtizite, it is stated that in the vicinity since pre historic rock paints were identified by the Archeological Department, the petitioner was forced to shut down the mining lease. Ultimately, the protection of the said rock paintings became subject matter of public interest litigation in PIL.No.314 of 2012, which was finally disposed of on 18.12.2013, wherein it was made clear that the mining activity beyond the 100 M.Ts in all the directions from the holder containing rock paintings can be continued. In view of that, it was clear that petitioner’s mining activity being beyond the prescribed limit has of adverse affect on the said rock paintings. Petitioner filed request for revival of mining lease on 03.12.2012. However, complaining of inaction in spite of several representations urging respondent No.1 to take a decision in the matter, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Government has issued a memo dated 10.12.2014 on the representation received from the petitioner and the same was forwarded to the Director of Mines and Geology on 08.01.2013 requiring him to submit his remarks.
The Government is, therefore, awaiting for the remarks and then pass appropriate orders.
5. It is evident that petitioner’s request is pending from 2012 and even the remarks from the Director were called for more than a year back. It is, therefore, in the fitness of things to dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.1 to consider petitioner’s request after obtaining appropriate reports from the concerned authorities below and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, preferably within two months.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 12, 2014 LMV