Disposed

Hanuman Minerals v. District Collector cum District Magistrate

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2019WP/7789/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. held that the impugned order passed on 18.06.2019 lapsed as the two-month validity period expired on 17.08.2019, rendering no order subsisting for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that no order is in force to prevent the petitioner from quarrying.

Hanuman Minerals Vs District Collector cum… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.7789 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2019 under Section 144 Cr.P.C and the action of the 5^th respondent in issuing letter dated 12.06.2019 as illegal, and arbitrary and declare that the same is violative of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the above proceedings of the 3^rd and 5^th respondents.

¶4

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions, confined his arguments to the impugned order with regard to legality of the impugned order as on date, which is now under challenge under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.

¶5

Section 144 Cr.P.C deals with power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger. According to sub-section (1), in cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with

¶6

respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.

¶7

The present order falls under sub-section (1) of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. But, sub-section (4) specifically mandates that the order passed under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for not more than two months from the making thereof. The impugned order was passed on 18.06.2019 and the two months period has expired by 17.08.2019. Hence, as on date, no order is in force or subsisting to be enforced by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 are not entitled to prevent this petitioner from quarrying, in pursuance of the order impugned in this writ petition.

¶8

In view of my foregoing discussion, since the order is lapsed under sub-section (4) of Section 144 of Cr.P.C, no further direction need be issued, except to the extent stated above.

¶9

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶10

stand closed.

¶11

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶12

Date: 12.11.2019 sp

Hanuman Minerals v. District Collector cum District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Minerals v. District Collector cum District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Adinarayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devaboina Hazarathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gosala Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Avulaiah alias Babu Vs the State of Ap

K. Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Chandra Sekhar, Vs The Tahsildar