Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23073 (AP)

Jithin Minerals v. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited

WP/20250/2025 · 2026-01-19

Ninala Jayasurya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.20250 OF 2025 Between: 1. Jithin Minerals, Rep. by its Proprietor, N. Maneesh Kumar, R/o Shop No.4, 4th Floor, Skandhanshi Vyapar, Opp.01 Eidgah, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, and another. ...Petitioners AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, (A State Government Undertaking) Rep. by its Managing Director, R/o 294/ID, Tadipgapa to Enikepadu 100ft Road, Kanuru Village, Penamuluru Mandal, Vijayawada-521 137, and another. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Venkat Challa Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Jeevan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.Madhava Rao Nalluri The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.S.V.Maruti Sankar, learned counsel representing Mr.Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.N.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / A.P.M.D.C.Ltd. 2. Perused the Proceedings dated 13.8.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that pursuant to the Proceedings dated 13.8.2025, the application of the petitioner was considered and found that the petitioner is not qualified. 2 3. At this juncture, Mr.Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that vide Communication dated 10.11.2025, the agency for working of Ball Clay mining lease was granted in favour of the respondent No.2 and the Letter of Intent is to be signed and submitted by the respondent No.2. In the light of the subsequent developments, the matter has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Needless to observe that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the allotment of mining lease in favour of the respondent No.2, they may work out remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 20.1.2026. vasu