APHC010066442013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15816 of Between: Ravipati Suresh Babu The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: Heard Sri T.Janardhan Rao, Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, dated 21.08.2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, the petitioner was directed to show cause application for grant of a mining lease should not be rejected, considering that the subject land had already been reserved for the exclusive exploitation of iron ore by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC), a public sector, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.428, Industries and Commerce (B.I) Department dated 07.04.1972. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15816 of 2013 AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: T Janardhan Rao Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Mines and Geology The Court made the following order: Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that, vide impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, the petitioner was directed to show cause application for grant of a mining lease should not be rejected, considering that and had already been reserved for the exclusive exploitation of iron ore by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC), a public sector, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.428, Industries and Commerce (B.I) Department dated 07.04.1972. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...petitioner ...Respondents GP for Mines and Geology for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, Industries and Commerce as to why the application for grant of a mining lease should not be rejected, considering that and had already been reserved for the exclusive exploitation of iron ore by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC), a public sector, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.428, Industries and Commerce (B.I) 2 3. The 4th respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, vide proceedings dated 18.01.2012, informed the petitioner that the application could not be considered, since the land had already been allotted to APMDC. 4. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 10.10.2012, but no final order was passed thereafter. However, a perusal of the record indicates that the 4th respondent had already rejected the petitioner’s application vide proceedings dated 18.01.2012, and the same was communicated to the petitioner. 5. It is pursuant to these proceedings that the Industries and Commerce Department issued the subsequent show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to explain why the application should not be formally rejected. 6. A perusal of the record indicates that the subject land had already been reserved by the Government for exclusive exploitation by the public sector, specifically through G.O.Ms.No.428, Industries and Commerce (B.I) Department, dated 07.04.1972. In light of the same, the Mines Department rightly rejected the petitioner’s application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the land was allotted in favour of APMDC in 1972, no mining activity has been carried on, and in fact, the land is under encroachment. He thus urges that the petitioner's application for mining lease should be considered. 3 8. Since the subject land has been allotted in favour of APMDC and the same has been reserved for exclusive public sector exploitation, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 20.06.2025 BSK 4 176 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15816 of 2013 Date: 20.06.2025 BSK