Telangana High Court
WP/11019/2012 of U Venkata Ramana, Vs The government of Andhra Pradesh on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11019 2012 ORDER: The petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry Laterite over an extent of 4.447 Hectares in different sub- divisions of Survey No.9 of Vanthada Village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, through G.O.Ms.No.139, dated
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
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:
WRIT PETITION No.110192012
The petitioner was granted mining lease to quarryLaterite over an extent of 4.447 Hectares in different sub-divisions of Survey No.9 of Vanthada Village, PrathipaduMandal, East Godavari District, through G.O.Ms.No.139, dated09.06.2008, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The leaseis to be in force for a period of 20 years. The Deputy Director ofMines & Geology, Kakinada, respondent No.4 herein, issued ashow cause notice, dated 09.12.2010, requiring the petitioner toexplain as to why a sum of Rs.10,07,516/- be not collected fromhim towards the market value of the Laterite extracted by him. It was alleged that the petitioner extracted that material from anarea which is not leased out to him. The petitioner is said tohave offered oral explanation. Taking the same into account,respondent No.4 issued a notice, dated 11.01.2011, confirmingthe demand and requiring the petitioner to pay the amount.
The petitioner filed a revision against the demand notice,dated 11.01.2011, before respondent No.1 together with anapplication for stay. His grievance is that even while therevision is pending, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are insisting onpayment of the amount as a condition precedent for issuingtransport permits.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology.
The petitioner has already availed the remedy of revisionunder Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 beforerespondent No.1. His grievance is only about the arrangementthat is to be made pending the revision.
The allegation against the petitioner is that the mineralwas extracted from the area not leased out to him. Thequestion as to whether the demand notice issued by respondentNo.4 suffers from any legal or factual infirmity needs to beexamined by respondent No.1. However, once the petitionerhas extracted the mineral, the denial of permits would result inseveral complications. The interest of the State can beprotected by directing that the petitioner shall pay half of thedemanded amount.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing thatrespondent Nos.4 and 5 shall issue transport permits to thepetitioner to lift the material, which is covered by the impugnednotice, on payment of 50% of the demanded amount. 25% ofthe demanded amount, which is said to have been paid incompliance with the interim order passed by this Court, shall betaken into account. The lifting of the material shall be subjectto the orders that may be passed by respondent No.1. Therevision shall be disposed of by respondent No.1, within aperiod of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt: 28.12.2012.
kdl