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. 35462 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Jamal Vali.
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. Present writ petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in passing appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation, dated 18.08.2009. Petitioner states that he was granted mining lease for Quartzite over an extent of 174.830 hectares in Survey No.894 of Uppaluru Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District, for a period of 20 years, subject to submitting the Environmental Clearance Certificate within six months. Petitioner states that he suffered from Rheumatoid Arthisties and enlargement of Gall Bladder and Urinal Infection diseases and underwent medical treatment at Appollo hospitals, Chennai for over a period of two months and consequently, he could not take up the lease.
He, therefore, requested to extend the lease period to enable him to submit the environmental clearance certificate. The said application is stated to be pending from 18.08.2009 and after several reminders, petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging in action.
3. Learned Government Pleader has taken time and has today produced the copy of the Government Memo, dated 10.12.2014 requiring the Director of Mines and Geology to submit his remarks on the petitioner’s request. The said memo refers to petitioner’s representation, dated 30.08.2014. However, the said representation of 30.08.2014 is only a remainder application and the original request of the petitioner is pending from 18.08.2009.
4. Since several years have passed and as there is no decision taken by respondent No.1 all these years, I deem it appropriate 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