Dismissed¶37

Sri.P.Rama Krishna & 2 Others v. the State of Ap., Mines & Geology & 6 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2026WP/20901/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; Writ Petition 20901/2014; Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; dismissed as infructuous on 04.02.2026; mandamus sought for inaction on representations dated 19-11-2012 and 18-05-2014 against respondents 5 and 6; cancellation of mining lease Proceedings No.1162/R1-2/2011 dt.18-08-2012 sought; Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957; A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966; Articles 226, 14, 300A; Section 151 CPC interim petition (WPMP 26200/2014); Visakhapatnam district; no order as to costs; no merits decided; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. ¶37

Sri.P.Rama Krishna & 2 Others Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the official respondents in failing to take action on the petitioners' representations dated 19-11-2012 and 18-05-2014 concerning respondents 5 and 6 was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication and the matter had become infructuous, the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. No findings were recorded on the merits of the grievances raised.

¶37

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.20901 of 2014 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda J.; decided 04.02.2026): Three petitioners from Gavarampalem, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam district, sought a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring illegal and arbitrary the inaction of the official respondents (State of AP, Director of Mines and Geology, Zonal Joint Director and Assistant Director, Mines & Geology) in not acting on their representations dated 19-11-2012 and 18-05-2014 against private respondents 5 (proprietor of M/s. Vallabha Rocks) and 6, alleging violation of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and Articles 14 and 300A, and praying for cancellation of the mining lease granted to respondent 5 vide Proceedings No.1162/R1-2/2011 dated 18-08-2012. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners (Ms. Revanthi, representing counsel on record) submitted that the cause did not survive for further adjudication and the matter had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions as a sequel. No adjudication occurred on the merits; the questions framed in the petition remain undecided.

¶1

APHC010422002014

¶2

[3329]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20901/2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

SRI.P.RAMA KRISHNA & 2 OTHERS, S/O.LATE SRI APPA RAO, AGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O.D.NO.15-10-23, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI B.TRINADHA RAO,, S/O.LATE SRI ADHINARAYANA, AGED: 46 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O.D.NO.18-6-7, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI K.VENKATRAMANA,, S/O.LATE SRI ADHINARAYNA, AGED: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/ O.D.NO.16-7-16, GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP MINES GEOLOGY 6 OTHERS, DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR MINES GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BURUGULA RAMA KRISHNA BHAWAN, HYDERABAD.

¶16

THE ZONAL JOINT DIRECTOR MINES GEOLOGY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES & GEOLOGY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶18

SRI K V NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O.LATE SRI K.V.RAMESAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR,

¶19

M/S.VALLABHA ROCKS, R/O.D.NO.51-8-40/34, K.R.M. COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶20

SRI SENAPATHI GANGADHAR, S/O.SRI VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/ O.M.KOTAPADU VILLAGE, V.MADUGULA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶21

TAHSILDHAR, MADUGULA VILLAGE & MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in not taking necessary and appropriate action against respondents No.5 and 6 on the representations dated 19-11-2012 and 18-05-2014 made by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 made therein and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to immediately to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of the 5th respondent vide proceedings No.1162/R1-2/2011 dated 18-08-2012 and to pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper.

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 26200 OF 2014

¶25

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 direct the 5th and 6th respondents not to carry out any mining activity in pursuance of the proceedings No.1162/R1-2/2011, Dt. 18.08.2012 and to pass such other order(s) as are deemed fit and proper.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.G PURUSHOTHAM REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITON NO.20901 OF 2014

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for

¶35

the respondents.

¶36

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.Revanthi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.

¶37