Telangana High Court
WP/38098/2015 of M/s. Pratap Reddy Minerals, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.38098 of 2015 ORDER: Despite the matter being adjourned five times to enable the mining authorities to file a counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for the petitioner,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.38098 of 2015
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:
Despite the matter being adjourned five times to enable themining authorities to file a counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit hasbeen filed till date.
Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for thepetitioner, states that the matter is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in W.P.No.26536 of 2015.
Perusal of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed in W.P.No.26536of 2015 reflects that the grievance of the petitioner therein was identicalto the petitioner’s grievance herein. In the said writ petition, the stand ofthe State was that a proposal was pending with the Government foralienation of the land covered by the mining leases in the very samearea for establishment of an Industrial Hub and there was consequentlya proposal to terminate all the mining leases in the area. This Courttook note of the fact that under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh MinorMineral Concession Rules, 1966, an existing leaseholder had a right toquarry, carry away, sell and dispose of the minor mineral specified in thesaid lease. Therefore, as long as the lease subsists and is in operation,this Court opined that the leaseholder could not be prevented fromgiving effect to his rights thereunder by denying him dispatch permits. Itwas on this basis that the earlier writ petition was disposed of directingthe mining authorities to issue transit permits to the petitioner therein forquarrying the mineral and transporting it. This Court also made it clearthat the order would not come in the way of the authorities fromproceeding in accordance with law with its pending proposals.
In the present case, the written instructions furnished by theAssistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, state to the effect thatthe petitioner was granted dispatch permits earlier. However, accordingto the Assistant Director, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitionerhad expired and he failed to produce an explosives licence and a Consent Order for Operation from the Pollution Control Board.
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. Evenif that be so, it is for the mining authorities to take appropriate action inthe matter for cancellation of the mining lease in accordance with therules. Having failed to do so, it is not open to them to withhold thedispatch 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 in thelight of this order. No order as to costs.
___________________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date:31.12.2015
GJ