Disposed

M/s. Josh Granites, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Nov 2021WP/25079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inaction by Director of Mines & Geology regarding a quarry lease application under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, alleging violation of fundamental rights. Court directed authorities to pass orders on the pending application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Director of Mines and Geology directed to pass appropriate orders and decide the quarry lease application within four weeks.

M/s. Josh Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25079 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The issue in the present Writ Petition arises under the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, in processing the quarry lease application of the petitioner, is the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

¶5

Petitioner herein submitted a quarry lease application on 09.04.2021 for colour granite in respect of the mineral bearing area admeasuring 2.720 Hectares in Sy.No.124/4 & 5 (Old Sy.No.107) of Amudhalaputtur Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶6

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after submission of the said application by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Tahsildar for necessary information as to the classification of the land and no objection and that the Tahsildar, on 12.09.2018, granted no objection also. It is further stated that the authorities granted Letter of Acceptance on 03.05.2019 and, as the respondents herein failed to grant lease in favour of the petitioner herein, for considering its application, petitioner herein was compelled to file W.P.No.15954 of 2020 before this Court.

¶7

This Court, on 07.10.2021, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application,

¶8

¶9

AVSS,J W.P.No.25079 of 2021

¶10

dated 09.04.2021, filed by the petitioner herein, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶11

Subsequently, vide letter No.8064/D13-1/2020, dated 13.11.2020, the Director of Mines & Geology-second respondent herein requested the petitioner herein to submit a valid MRCC issued by the authority concerned and also justification for the financial investment for the method of mining as shown in the Approved Mining Plan for the purpose of processing the quarry lease application. Later, the Director of Mines & Geology-second respondent herein, on the ground that the petitioner herein did not furnish the valid MRCC so also the specific justification of financial investment, as pointed out in the show cause notice, called upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why the application of the petitioner herein, for grant of quarry lease, should not be rejected under Rule 12 (5) (d) of the Rules. It is further stated that, in response to the said show cause notice, petitioner herein, on 08.03.2021, submitted an explanation/reply. A copy of the said explanation/reply is placed on record as material paper along with the present Writ Petition. In the said explanation/reply, petitioner herein stated that it is not liable to submit MRCC as it is not in arrears of the Mineral Revenue or dead rent or royalty. Petitioner herein also stated about its justification, touching the element of financial investment.

¶12

¶13

AVSS,J W.P.No.25079 of 2021

¶14

In the above background, petitioner herein has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that, despite submission of the said explanation offered by the petitioner herein and in spite of the justification shown therein, as regards the alleged infirmities pointed out by the respondents, respondent authorities are not processing the application of the petitioner herein and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said inaction on the part of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Rules.

¶15

On the contrary, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology, Sri K.Naveen Kumar, strenuously submits that there is no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents herein, as such, the present Writ Petition cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that, responding to the show cause notice, petitioner herein submitted its reply/explanation as long back as on 08.03.2021 i.e., more than six months back and, despite the same, no orders have been passed so far by the respondent authorities in the direction of redressing the grievance of the petitioner herein. Having received the explanation/reply, this Court does not find any valid

¶16

¶17

AVSS,J W.P.No.25079 of 2021

¶18

justification on the part of the respondent authorities in keeping the issue pending.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Director of Mines and Geology (FAC), Department of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam-second respondent herein to pass appropriate orders, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 01.03.2021, and the reply submitted by the petitioner on 08.03.2021, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and, subject to the outcome of the same, respondents herein shall take a decision on the quarry lease application, dated 09.04.2021, said to have been submitted by the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶21

in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

01^st November, 2021. Tsy

M/s. Josh Granites, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Josh Granites, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Vadluri Malathi Rajani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Obaiah alias Mariyadas Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Jagadeeswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

R Mariyamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

JalliSanjeeva Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Venkata Rao Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation