A. Badrinath, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/S NARAYANA MINING COMPANY, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, A. VENGAIAH, S/O SUNDARAIAH, R/O VEERANNAKANUPUR VILLAGE, VENKATACHALAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.SIVARAJU SRINIVAS

¶21

2

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.M P CHANDRAMOULI

¶24

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶25

The Court made the following order :

¶26

Heard the submissions of Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

No representation for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶28

3. The petitioner has sought the following relief:

¶29

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the orders passed by the 1^st Respondent in Memo No.2848/M.l(2)2013, dated 30.05.2014 to the extent of permitting the Respondents 4 & 5 to resume their mining operation in Sy.No.1, 2, 3/1, 3/2 & 41 as illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of the orders passed in W.P.No.2631/2013, dated 22.02.2013 and W.P.No.22812/2013, dated 07.02.2014, apart from being orders passed without application of mind, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice, thus being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass”

¶30

The Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order passed by the

¶31

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16433 of 2022 in respect of the same subject matter. It is relevant to reproduce of the order passed in W.P.No.16433 of 2022, wherein it is observed that:

¶32

“……it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of 5^th

¶33

3

¶34

respondent and the firm in which the 6^th respondent is a Managing Partner, till the dispute relating to the said lease is disposed of finally.”

¶35

It is contended that challenging the same, the unofficial respondents in the said writ petition filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench had confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the judgment of Division Bench in W.A.No.100 of 2025, wherein it is observed that:

¶36

“Needless to say that the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.16433 of 2022 as upheld by the Division Bench vide its order, dated 13.10.2022, did not restrict issue of execution of lease deed till the disposal of a particular appeal or proceedings before a particular authority, but it was specifically held that the lease deed would not be executed in favour of the private respondent Nos.5 & 6 till the dispute relating to the said lease was „disposed of finally‟.

¶37

11. Be that as it may, we set aside the judgment and order impugned as also declare the execution of the lease deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6 as non est in the eyes of law and shall be deemed to have been cancelled. Execution of the lease deed in future would depend upon the final disposal of the dispute. No costs.”

¶38

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, no further orders are required to be passed.

¶39

4

¶40

Having regard to the same, no further steps for execution of mining operations in respect of the subject lands shall be taken up by the respondents.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.16433 of 2022, directing the respondents not to conduct any mining operations pursuant to the lease deed executed in respect of the subject land by the official respondents.

¶42