Allowed

M/s. Stonecart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2021WP/25910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ petition regarding alleged administrative inaction by mining authorities in processing a quarry lease application. Court directed respondents to process the application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to process the quarry lease application and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

M/s. Stonecart Vs The State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

AVSS,J W.P.No.25910 of 2021

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.25910 OF 2021

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶6

Alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in processing the quarry lease application, dated 26.06.2015, submitted by the petitioner herein, vide ID.No.2723/Q/2015, for grant of lease, in respect of the mineral bearing area admeasuring 04.700 Hectares situated in Sy.No.177/1 of Neelayyavalana Village, Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶7

According to the petitioner, he submitted the said quarry lease application on 26.06.2015 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology-fourth respondent herein and the fourth respondent herein called for the feasibility report from the revenue authorities and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District-fifth respondent herein and the fifth respondent herein, after holding enquiry, found that an extent of 04.700 Hectares in Sy.No.177/1 of Neelayyavalana Village, Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District, as indicated in the

¶8

¶9

AVSS,J W.P.No.25910 of 2021

¶10

sketch, is available for issuance of lease by the Mining Department subject to permissibility under the Rules. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam, vide proceedings in Rc.No.2105/2015/A4, dated 28.10.2015, also clarified that the proposed mining area is far away i.e., at a distance of 15.15 Kms from the nearest Antikonda Reserve forest Compt.No.241, and that there is no wildlife movement and the Government plantation in the proposed mining area.

¶11

In the above background, the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that, despite compliance of all the mandatory requirements by the petitioner and in spite of receipt of report from the revenue authorities as to the classification and availability of the land and in spite of the proceedings of the Forest authorities, referred to supra, the respondent authorities are not processing the application of the petitioner herein.

¶12

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application submitted by the petitioner herein is still pending consideration before the respondent-mining authorities.

¶13

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the respondent-mining

¶14

¶15

AVSS,J W.P.No.25910 of 2021

¶16

authorities in not processing the quarry lease application of the petitioner herein in accordance with law.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to process the application, dated 26.06.2015, said to have been submitted by the petitioner herein for grant of quarry lease for Colour Granite, in respect of the mineral bearing area admeasuring 04.700 Hectares situated in Sy.No.177/1 of Neelayyavalana Village, Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District, and take appropriate action/pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶20

08^th November, 2021.

¶21

Tsy

M/s. Stonecart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Stonecart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Chenamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Nagarajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolla Venkata Naga Prasad. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

Tiyyali Shekar Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiranjeevi Reddy Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chilakamarthy Hema Nagini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh