ORDER:

The parties in both the writ petitions are more or less same and facts involved are also identical and hence, the two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.26084/2015 is filed questioning the inaction of official respondents, particularly respondents 4, 5 & 7, in taking action against respondent No.10 from interfering with mining operations of the petitioner in respect of Ac.13.30 cents in East Kanupuru Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in spite of several representations of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents 4, 5 & 7 to take necessary action against respondent No.10.

3. Whereas, W.P.No.1962/2019 is filed by the petitioner challenging the lease determination proceedings No.154247/R3-1/2016 dated 11.12.2018 issued by the Director of Mines & Geology, A.P./2nd respondent as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out mining operations in mining lease land of Ac. 13.30 cents (5.382 Hect) in S.No.1/47 (new) [1/7 old] and 1/8B of East Kanupuru Village.

4. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) As per averments in W.P.No.26084/2015, on 01.10.2004, the petitioner company applied for grant of mining lease of silica sand in an extent of Ac. 102.67 cents in S.No.1/47 and 1/80 of East Kanupuru Village for 20 years to 4th respondent. After following due procedure, the 4th respondent vide proceedings in Dis.No.784/2004 dated 31.05.2005 informed that out of Ac.102.67 cents applied by the petitioner company, an extent of Ac.10.05 cents in S.No.1/47 and Ac.3.25 cents in S.No.1/8P totalling Ac.13.30 cents was available for granting mining lease. The petitioner submitted mining plan and subsequently the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.213 dated 01.08.2006 granting mining lease over an extent of Ac.13.30 cents in S.Nos.1/47 and 1/8P of East Kanupuru Village for 20 years. When there was delay for execution of the lease deed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23010/2012 which was disposed of on 04.10.2012 with a direction to the respondents to complete the formality of execution of mining lease deed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.213. Accordingly, the 4th respondent executed mining lease deed on 17.10.2013 and ever since the petitioner company has been conducting mining operations.

(b) While so, the 10th respondent company which has nothing to do with the petitioner’s leasehold land filed O.S.No.34/2015 against the petitioner and its partners seeking injunction and also exparte injunction and the said petition was ultimately dismissed. Even then the 10th respondent interfered with petitioner’s mining operation with the aid of rowdy elements and damaged the road leading from mining operations point to the main road. Even thereafter also, the 10th respondent has been continuously meddling with petitioner’s mining operations. The petitioner lodged a criminal complaint before the 9th respondent and forwarded copy to Superintendent of Police, Nellore/8th respondent, but of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 24.04.2015 to the District Collector, Nellore/5th respondent, however, no action has been taken by him. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13708/2015 before the High Court of A.P. wherein the Court directed to submit the action taken by the 5th respondent. In turn, the 5th respondent addressed to respondents 4 & 7 to take necessary action against the 10th respondent. Even then there was no action and therefore, the petitioner submitted successive representations dated 12.06.2015, 07.07.2015, 10.08.2015 and 14.08.2015 to respondents 4, 5 & 7 but no steps have been taken by them. In the meanwhile, the 10th respondent is continuously interrupting the petitioner’s mining operations.

Hence, the writ petition No.26084/2015.

5. W.P.No.1962/2019 is concerned, the petitioner’s case is that in W.P.No.26084/2015 the Tahsildar, Chilakur Mandal/7th respondent filed counter, wherein he stated that