Telangana High Court
WP/14766/2005 of M/s. Ashok Minerals Vs The Govt. of A.P on 26 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 14766 of 2005 Between: M/s. Ashok Minerals Rep.by its Director A . Ashok Kumar, S/o. A . Ranganadhan R/o. 1/1940, Krishnappa Nagar Railway Station Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P
HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No. 14766 of 2005
Between:
M/s. Ashok Minerals Rep.by its Director A. Ashok Kumar, S/o. A. Ranganadhan R/o. 1/1940, Krishnappa Nagar Railway Station Kadapa District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Govt. of A.P Rep.by its Secretary, Dept. of Steel & Mines New Delhi and others.
...RESPONDENTS
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::
Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. N. ShobaCounsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 : GP for Mines andGeologyCounsel for the Respondent No.3: : Sri P. Veera Reddy th26December, 2005
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This petition is directed against order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the CentralGovernment under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1957 Act”) read with Rule 55 ofthe A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “theRules”).
Though the learned counsel for the parties agree that the grounds on which theimpugned order has been challenged are identical to those taken in Writ Petition No.19281 of 2004 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated19.4.2005, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 made a feebleattempt to persuade us not to interfere with impugned order dated 5.10.2004 bypointing out that the petitioner has approached the Court after long lapse of time andthere is no explanation for the delay of almost one year.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 buthave not felt persuaded to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of delay. It istrue that the petitioner has filed writ petition after lapse of considerable time, butkeeping in view the fact that the order under challenge has already been set asideby the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19281 of 2004 and Writ AppealNos.1088 and 1699 of 2005 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge havebeen dismissed today, we do not consider it proper to non-suit the petitioner only onthe ground of delay and feel that the ends of justice require that a similar order bepassed in this case as well.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 5.10.2004 passed by theCentral Government is set aside. The detailed reasons recorded in the order passedby us today in Writ Appeal Nos. 1088 of 2005 and 1699 of 2005, shall be read aspart of this order. The directions contained in that order shall also apply to thepresent case.
Date: 26[th] December, 2005
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J