Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.33420 of 2016 in W.P. No.26992 of 2016 dated 12.08.2016. The respondent-writ petitioners herein had, in W.P.M.P. No.33419 of 2016 in W.P. No.26992 of 2016, sought suspension of operation of letter No.5650/MDRC/2016 dated 01.08.2016 of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. In W.P.M.P. No.33420 of 2016, the respondent-writ petitioners had sought a direction from this Court to the said Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to issue transit passes for transporting laterite mineral, from their licensed stock yards, for the quantities applied as per the A.P. Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000.

2. In the interlocutory order dated 12.08.2016, passed in both the aforesaid W.P.M.Ps, the Learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners, that the Division Bench had directed that the petitioners should be allowed to deal with the laterite mineral in the stock yard in accordance with the rules; after completing the exercise of conducting inventory, transit passes may also be issued to them; the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology could not deny issuance of transit passes to the petitioners; and this conduct of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology practically amounted to committing contempt of the orders passed by the Division Bench. The Learned Single Judge also took note of the submission, urged on behalf of the appellants herein by the Learned Special Government Pleader, that the order of the Division Bench was that, till the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad took a decision in respect of the alleged excavation of Laterite mineral by the lessees, transit passes were not liable to be issued.

3. After referring to the order passed in W.P.No.16089 of 2016 dated 14.07.2016, the Learned Single Judge observed that the Division Bench had directed inventory of the minerals, stored in the stock yard, by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology; it had directed preservation of the record of such inventory till the Director, Mines and Geology took a decision whether to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the alleged illegal excavation of the said stock of minerals; it had further directed the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology to allow the lessees thereafter to deal with the mineral, stored in the stock-yard, in accordance with the rules, and this would be subject to the action which would be later proposed by the respondents against the lessees; and it had made it clear that, after completing the exercise of conducting inventory, the concerned authorities could issue transit passes in accordance with law.

4. The Learned Single Judge held that it was not in dispute that a show-cause notice had been issued to the respondent-writ petitioner on 20.07.2016 as well as to the lessees, and they had submitted their explanations thereto; the interpretation sought to be placed by the Special Government Pleader was clearly contrary to the language used in the order passed in W.P.No.16089 of 2016 dated 14.07.2016; the Division Bench had clearly permitted issuance of transit passes after completion of inventory; and the dealing by the petitioner, or lessees with the said mineral, was permitted subject to further action which may be initiated by the respondents against them. While rejecting the contention put forth by the Learned Special Government Pleader, the Learned Single Judge granted interim suspension and interim direction as prayed for in both the WPMPs.

5. Learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that the mineral stored in the stock godowns, of the respondents-writ petitioners herein, is the mineral, illegally quarried by several lessees, (one of whom is the respondent-writ petitione