Telangana High Court
WP/34640/2013 of Kondamalla Adilaxmi, W/o Narayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34640 of 2013 Date:16.12.2013 Between: Kondamalla Adilaxmi, S/o Narayana ..... Petitioner And: The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Industries And Commerce Department, Hyderabad and four others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34640 of 2013
Date:16.12.2013
Between: Kondamalla Adilaxmi,S/o Narayana
..... Petitioner
And:
The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, IndustriesAnd Commerce Department, Hyderabad and four others.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt N.Shoba
.....Respondents
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP for Mines andGeology Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declarethe action of the respondents, in not granting permissionto the petitioner for de-casting of sand from the patta landadmeasuring Acs.4.22 cents in Survey Nos.28/B, 29,29/A, 30 and 31 of Eturnagaram Village and Mandal,Warangal District under Rule-9L of the Andhra PradeshMinor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘theRules’), as illegal and arbitrary.
On 02.12.2013, this Court adjourned the case toenable the learned Government Pleaders for Mines &Geology and Revenue (Telangana area) to obtaininstructions.
At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Mines & Geology and Revenue did notdispute the fact that the petitioner has made hisapplication before the expiry of six months from the dateof incorporation of Rule-9L of the Rules. Indeed, the letterin proceedings, vide Rc.No.MAO/ETG/2013,, dated04.05.2013, addressed by the Mandal Agriculture Officer,Eturnagaram to respondent No.5 itself would show thatthe petitioner has made his application while Rule 9L ofthe Rules was in force, even if it is assumed that itsvalidity has expired after six months.
In similar circumstances, this Court has disposed ofa number of Writ Petitions, eg: Writ Petition No.26637 of2013 by order, dated 13.09.2013. Following the saidorder, this Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to therespondents to consider the petitioner’s application forgrant of de-casting permission within a period of onemonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.43086 of 2013 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
16[th] December, 2013DR