Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
PRASANTHI MINERALS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 4665/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Narasimha Rao
For the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP), GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)
A writ petition is dismissed as infructuous when the petitioner's counsel submits that the cause of action no longer survives due to subsequent events.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology regarding the determination of a quarry lease and the failure of the State to dispose of revision petitions. The petitioner sought a declaration that the determination of the lease was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue was whether the cause of action in the writ petition survived for further adjudication. The court observed the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that due to subsequent events, the matter had become infructuous. the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 orders of Deputy Director of Mines and Geology vide Proceedings No.1071/Q1/2013, dated 30-9-2014 (received by the petitioner on 28.4.2018) determining the lease held by the petitioner and the action of the Respondent No.1 in not disposing of my revision petitions, dated 29.5.2018 and 5.3.2019 and trying to create third party interest over the mining lease held by the petitioner i.e. an extent of 5.194 hectares in Sy.No.62011 situated at Ulindakonda Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District without disposing of the above revision petitions is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is not liable for determination of the quarry lease and pass
The court made the following ORDER :-
When the matter is called, Sri K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the subsequent events occurred in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. Accordingly, he submits that the matter has become infructuous.
Recording the above said submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
