Telangana High Court
WP/37086/2015 of M/s. Sri Rama Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.37086 of 2015 ORDER: Despite the matter being adjourned six times to enable the mining authorities to file a counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
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.37086 of 2015
Despite the matter being adjourned six times to enable themining authorities to file a counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit hasbeen filed till date.
Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,states that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Courtin W.P.No.26536 of 2015. A copy of the order dated 07.09.2015passed in the said writ petition is placed on record.
Perusal thereof reflects that the grievance of the petitionertherein was identical to the petitioner’s grievance herein. In the saidwrit petition, the stand of the State was that a proposal was pendingwith the Government for alienation of the land covered by the miningleases in the very same area for establishment of an Industrial Huband there was consequently a proposal to terminate all the miningleases in the area. This Court took note of the fact that under Rule 20of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, anexisting leaseholder had a right to quarry, carry away, sell and disposeof the minor mineral specified in the said lease. Therefore, as long asthe lease subsists and is in operation, this Court opined that theleaseholder could not be prevented from giving effect to his rightsthereunder by denying him dispatch permits. It was on this basis thatthe earlier writ petition was disposed of directing the mining authoritiesto issue transit permits to the petitioner therein for quarrying themineral and transporting it. This Court also made it clear that the orderwould not come in the way of the authorities from proceeding inaccordance with law with its pending proposals.
In the present case, the written instructions furnished by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, state to the effectthat the petitioner was granted dispatch permits earlier. However,according to the Assistant Director, the bank guarantee furnished bythe petitioner had expired and he failed to produce an explosiveslicence and a Consent Order for Operation from the Pollution ControlBoard.
The aforestated instructions seem to be self-serving as theAssistant Director, on the one hand, conceded that the petitioner wasissued dispatch permits earlier, while on the other hand, he stated thatthe petitioner did not have the requisite permissions for operation. Even if that be so, it is for the mining authorities to take appropriateaction in the matter for cancellation of the mining lease in accordancewith the rules. Having failed to do so, it is not open to them to withholdthe dispatch permits.
On the aforestated grounds, this Court finds no reason todisagree with the earlier decision in W.P.No.26536 of 2015.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms thereofdirecting the respondent authorities to issue transit permits to thepetitioner herein for quarrying and transporting the mineral covered bythe subsisting lease. This order shall however not preclude theauthorities from taking appropriate action as deemed fit in the matter inaccordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed inthe light of this order. No order as to costs.
___________________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date:31.12.2015
GJ