1 APHC010352092016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 44860/2016 Between: Mahalakshmi Minerals ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Industries Commmerce Hyd 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 15611/GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (TG) 2. K LAKSHMAN (AST SOL GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..declaring (i) That the Application made by the Petitioner on 25.10.2008 for grant of Mining Lease of Manganese in the private Patta lands belonging to the Petitioner over an area of 11.92 Acres (4.63 Hectares) in S.No.338/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 339/1 to 18 situate in B.P. Varakatta 2 Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, falls in the exception carved out under Section 10 A (2) (C) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957; and (ii) That the Petitioner is entitled to be granted a Mining Lease over the area covered under the Application dated 25.10.2008 in accordance with Rule 8 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Rules, 2016 without forfeiting the rights accrued to the Petitioner under Section 10 A (2) (C) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 on and with effect from 11.01.2017; and (iii) Consequently direct the Respondents to grant and execute a Mining Lease in favor of the Petitioner Firm by considering the Application dated 25.10.2008, if necessary by imposing such conditions as may be prescribed under law; (iv) and pass such other order or orders…..” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions which are urged in the writ petition and limited his request to dispose of the representation dated 25.10.2008 submitted by the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, readily agreed to dispose of the said representation submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of 3 the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. Hence, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 25.10.2008 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 06.02.2025 ARR 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 4 HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO Writ Petition No.44860 of 2016 Date: 06.02.2025 ARR