APHC010208942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 844 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3446] G. Venkata Narsaiah Chowdary ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: K. S. Murthy Associates Advocate for Respondents: GP for Mines and Geology CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 7th August, 2025. Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.02.2025, passed in Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.17030 of 2018. The Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not have any locus to file the said Writ Petition. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 2. It appears that the genesis of the controversy arises in a PIL No.112 of 2013, which was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was inter alia prayed that the leases executed in favour of the 6th respondent i.e. M/s. Anand Granites Exports, be cancelled as they were indulging in illegal mining operations thereby causing loss to the exchequer. 2 HCJ & RRRJ WA_844_2025 The case of the petitioner inter alia was that even when the said lease was impermissible as per the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which envisages that a lessee shall not assign, sublet, transfer otherwise dispose of the lease without obtaining the previous sanction in writing, a sub-lease had been created in favour of the subject lessees. The PIL came to be disposed of with a direction to the Director of Mines and Geology and the District Collector to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and further that if any action was required to be taken the same be taken. 3. It appears from the record that the issue was considered by the Director of Mines and Geology and an order was passed on 25.04.2017, by recording as under: “On a careful consideration of the representation dated 23.02.2012 and subsequent representations submitted by Mr. GVN Chowdary, and on examining the contents of the Contract for Supply, it is hereby observed that the Contract in question is only a Supply Contract and the intention to Sub Lease or Sub Let the Mining Lease granted in favour of M/s. Anand Granites Exports Private Limited doesn’t exist. With these observations, the representation dated 23.02.2012 and subsequent representations filed by the petitioner are hereby considered and rejected and no further action need be taken on the said representations.” 4. Even when the matter should have rested at that stage, a revision was preferred before the Government against the order passed by the Director of 3 HCJ & RRRJ WA_844_2025 Mines and Geology, which came to be disposed of by virtue of the order dated 09.03.2018. The revisional authority upheld the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology by holding thus: “13. In order to dispose of the Revision Application, a personal hearing was conducted on 21.12.2017 duly giving reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the, Revision Petitioner. 14. After having heard the case, the Revisional Authority has observed that in the recitals of the "Contract Supply "document the quarry lease holder has a contract of selling the blocks on certain terms and conditions of procuring the machinery and manpower for quarry operations. In view of the investment made on the above certain share of blocks are given to the raising contractor at the rate of production cost. The advance which is repayable is given by the raising contractor to the quarry lease holder as means of performance security. The recitals and various clauses does not fit into the classification of lease as the lease hold rights over the lease property has not been parted with. Nowhere in the recitals and covenants of the document the intention of sublease or sublet has been expressed. 15. Based on the above facts, the representation of the Revision Applicant that the agreements are subleases cannot be considered and hence the Revisional Authority is hereby upheld the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology vide Proceedings No.6401/R3-2/2015, dated 25-04-2017. 16. The Revision Application is disposed off accordingly, under Rule 35-A of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.” 5. Being dissatisfied still by the order passed by the Government in Revision, the petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.17030 of 2018, which 4 HCJ & RRRJ WA_844_2025 came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned on the ground of locus. Reliance was placed upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others1, as also Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, the Apex Court held: “47. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No-objection Certificate.” 6. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the learned single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant herein was not a person aggrieved and therefore did not have any locus to pray for a writ of mandamus against the official respondents. 1 (1976) 1 SCC 671 2 (2013) 2 SCC 398 5 HCJ & RRRJ WA_844_2025 7. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order impugned. The Writ Appeal is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN