1 APHC010116552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6190 OF 2026 Between: 1. ROCK INDIA EXPORTS, 55-14-52/1, Ground Floor, Plot No.S-8, Road No.3, Doctor's Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013, Email rockin.exports@gmail.com. Rep by its Proprietor Abdul Vaheed. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department (Mines), Block No.3, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology, 5th and 6th Floors, Sri Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 3. The Asst Director of Mines and Geology, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ/order/direction a) quashing or setting aside the impugned order dated 30-01-2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent determining the Petitioner's valid Quarry Lease for colour granite over an extent of 2.360 hectares in Sy.No.104 of Sunnada Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District 2 b) Declare the action of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and void, c) Direct restoration of the Petitioner's mining lease forthwith d) Restrain the Respondents from granting lease or creating any third-party rights over the Petitioner's lease area, e) Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation/reply in accordance with law after granting personal hearing and f) Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the Respondent No.2 dated 30.01.2026 in D.Dis.Proc.No.10975612/D1-2/2025 with a further direction to the Respondents 2 & 3 not to create any 3rd party interest over the leased area held by the Petitioner over an extent of 2.360 hectares in Sy.No. 104 of Sunnada Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District pending disposal of WP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: G RAJA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6190 OF 2026 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ/order/direction a) quashing or setting aside the impugned order dated 30-01-2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent determining the Petitioner's valid Quarry Lease for colour granite over an extent of 2.360 hectares in Sy.No. 104 of Sunnada Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District b) Declare the action of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and void, c) Direct restoration of the Petitioner's mining lease forthwith d) Restrain the Respondents from granting lease or creating any third-party rights over the Petitioner's lease area, e) Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation/reply in accordance with law after granting personal hearing f) and pass …..” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G.Rajababu, submits that he challenged the impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent by way of instant lis. However, in view of subsequent events coupled with effective remedy of revision lies before the first respondent 4 under Rule 35-A of The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (APMMC Rules), hence, he seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition so as to avail the remedy of revision. He also brought to the notice of this Court that on 05.03.2026, this Court by way of interim orders directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps. Hence, he sought to continue the said interim orders till filing of revision. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submits that in view of alternative remedy of revision, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable at all. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as petitioner is inclined to invoke the revision before the 1st respondent, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms. A. The petitioner is hereby directed to file a revision before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. B. After filing of said revision by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to dispose 5 of the same in accordance with law by duly following the principles of natural justice, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of filing of revision before the 1st respondent. C. The respondent authorities are further directed not to take any coercive steps vide impugned orders in D. Dis. Proceedings No.10975612/D1-2/2025 dated 30.01.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, till the disposal of the said revision pending before the 1st respondent, in the interest of justice with an intention to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:09.03.2026 Rns 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.6190 of 2026 Date:09.03.2026 Rns