Telangana High Court
WP/23564/2004 of M/s Rayalaseema Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 23564 of 2004 Between: M/s Rayalaseema Granites, Rep.by its Managing Partner, B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No. 23564 of 2004
Between:
M/s Rayalaseema Granites, Rep.by its Managing Partner,B. Muthyalaiah S/o B. Adinarayana Chetty, R/o Vanayaka Temple Street, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industrial & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 The Director, Mines & Geology Department, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad.
3 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Chittoor.
4 V. Sampath, S/o R.V. Raghavan,
R/o NO. 22/2, Rangan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directions,directing the respondents not to under take quarrying operation in S.No. 92/1 ofKuppaganipalli village, Gudipiala Mandal,by virtue of transfer of lease from M/sRayalaseema Granites to M/s Unity Ent, Chennai by declaring the transfer of leaseorder passed by the 2nd res. In proc.No. 30621/R4-2/04 dt.13-10-2004 as illegal,arbitrary and contrary to law Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.S.RAMA MOORTHY REDDY
The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents and withtheir consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of admission.
Questioning the transfer of lease order passed by second respondent dated 13.10.2004 in favour ofM/s Unit Enterprises, Chennai, the present writ petition is filed.
It is stated that originally the petitioner firm was floated by one Mr.Raghupathi Naidu in the year 1987for extraction of black granite and related activities and the firm was granted a quarry lease over anextent of 4-00 hects. in Survey No.92/1 of Kuppaganipally village, Gudipalli mandal, Chittoor district inthe year 1994 for a period of 15 years. After the death of said Raghupathi Naidu, his brothers D.Hari,Dr.D.Madhavan and one Mr.C.P.Ramalinga Reddy became the partners of the firm. It is also statedthat the petitioner having settled all the claims of the partners, has became the soleproprietor/managing partner of M/s Rayalaseema Granites. It is also stated that the petitioner appointed the fourth respondent as hisrising contractor and financial partner and the same was intimated to the official respondents, andthereafter the firm was doing the business by investing huge amounts. It is stated that the fourthrespondent colluded with the earlier partner of the petitioner firm Sri D.Hari, to transfer the quarry leasegranted to the petitioner in favour of the fourth respondent, and accordingly, the second respondent byhis impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2004 transferred the quarry lease of the petitioner in favour ofthe fourth respondent. It is also stated that challenging the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2004,petitioner filed revision under Rule 35 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 before the firstrespondent and since no orders are forthcoming, the present writ petition is filed.
Fourth respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating he has entered into a lease agreement ofoperating quarry with M/s Rayalaseema Granites, rep. by its Propreitor Sri D.Hari and the same was approved by theGovernment of A.P. and that the said quarry lease is in valid till 31.8.2010 for quarrying black granites.
Conclusion
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that therevision filed by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the first respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 35 of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 against the Proceedings No.30621/R4-2/04 dated 13.10.2004issued by the second respondent expeditiously, within a period of three weeks. If the revision filed bythe petitioner is allowed, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the loss sufferedby him on account of the illegal transfer of lease in favour of fourth respondent. There shall be no orderas to costs.
Date: 28.12.2004
_____________
N.V.RAMANA, J
Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow.
B/o
DA/KSR
To
1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industrial & Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 The Director, Mines & Geology Department, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad.
3 The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Chittoor.2
4 Two CCs to the G.P. for Mines & Geology, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
5 Two C.D.copies.