ORDER : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. Heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology. 2 . Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, I deem it appropriate to decide both these cases by way of common order, by taking W.P.No.13016 of 2025 as lead petition. 3. The writ petitioner assails the action of the 3 rd respondent in not passing the orders pursuant to the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent as arbitrary and sought a consequential direction to the respondents to issue dispatch permits for 31,250 MT of Quartz and 93,750 MT of Feldspar. 4. It is contended that initially mining lease for Mica, Quartz, and Feldspar was granted in favour of one Sri D.Narapa Reddy over an extent of 49.24 acres in Sy.Nos.551, 553 and 554 of Thurupupoondla Village and in Sy.Nos.815 to 825 of Molakalapoondla Village of Sydapuram Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.1019, Industries & Commerce (B-II) Department, dated 18.11.1971. The said lease was in force have been received by the 2 nd respondent on 24.02.2025), reported that the quantity of mineral available at the mine, as per their inspection report, was quantified at 1,25,000 MT and recommended for issuance of dispatch permits. However, in view of the Notification of the Government of India omitting the subject mineral from the list of minor mineral, the 2 nd respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the subject mineral would be regulated by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the applicable Rules, thus the 2 nd respondent directed the 3 rd respondent to take appropriate action in the light of the amendments. 16. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 26.02.2025. The petitioner does not appear to have any grievance against the same. The effect of the said proceedings would be that the 3 rd respondent is now required to examine the issue afresh, in the light of the Notification of the Government of India dated 20.02.2025, categorizing the mineral as a major mineral, and pass orders afresh in compliance with Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules in terms of the directions of the 2 nd respondent. It is relevant to extract here the Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Rules, 2016: “12. It is relevant to extract here the Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Rules, 2016: “12. Terms and conditions of a mining lease:- (1) Every mining lease shall be subject to the following conditions: --- --- (gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and rules made thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term or within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such termination) take down and remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the State Government or which the State Government does not desire to purchase; - Therefore, the 3 rd respondent is not bound by its earlier recommendation dated 03.02.2025, which recommended the 2 nd respondent to issue dispatch permits. Without acting on the recommendation of the 3 rd respondent, the 2 nd respondent remanded the matter to the 3 rd respondent for passing appropriate orders in the light of the amendments categorizing the subject mineral (s) as major mineral. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent is at liberty to pass orders as directed by the 2 nd respondent, duly in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Rules, 2016, afresh. 17. In view of the foregoing, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the 3 rd respondent to pass appropriate orders as directed by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.02.2025, without placing any reliance on his earlier report and recommendation dated 03.02.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. - As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.