APHC010411242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22152 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 42 [3506] Mudili Navya ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th August 2026 The Court made the following Order: By present Writ Petition, the petitioner assails proceedings No.MAU61-DPONUZ(NQL)/1/2026-DP, dated 12.07.2026, issued by the 2nd respondent, by which the earlier „No Objection Certificate‟ (NOC) issued in favour of the petitioner stood revoked/cancelled, which entitled the petitioner to secure mining lease in Sy.No.145 of Morusumilli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, NTR District. 2. The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease over an extent of 2.310 Hectares in Sy.No.145 of the said village on 26.02.2026. Later, the 2nd respondent granted NOC to the 2 petitioner by endorsement dated 08.05.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner was communicated the impugned proceedings dated 12.07.2026, inter alia, the earlier NOC granted was revoked. It is stated that in view of the NOC granted in favour of the 6th respondent on 24.07.2026, without noticing the same, the NOC had been issued in favour of the petitioner, the same is proposed to be revoked. 3. Heard Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. 4. Ms. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, on oral instructions, submits that the NOC, which had already been issued on 22.07.2026, enables the prospective lessee to secure a mining lease over the extent of 2.310 Hectares in Sy.No.145 of Morusumilli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, NTR District. Therefore, it cannot be an impediment to the petitioner claiming for mining lease based on the NOC already issued. She further submits that the NOC is issued qua the extent of land but not to the person. At any rate, it is for 3rd and 4th respondents to 3 decide the entitlement for grant of quarry lease in favour of either the petitioner or the 6th respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to aforesaid instructions that NOC is subsisting over the subject land, the petitioner would approach 3rd and 4th respondents for processing the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity “Rules, 1966”). 6. Since it has been the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of revocation of NOC, the application of the petitioner would not be considered by the concerned respondent and having regard to the oral instructions and submissions of learned counsel for 2nd respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the eligibility or entitlement of either the petitioner or 6th respondent for grant of subject quarry lease. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of and 3rd and 4th respondents are directed to consider the applications of not only the petitioner or 6th respondent, even, 4 if any, other applications in accordance with Rule 12 of Rules, 1966 and take appropriate decision. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 07.08.2026 ANS