Disposed

C Subbamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2023WP/2961/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order insisting submission of NOC for quarry lease. Court noted application was declared ineligible by District Office. Petitioner directed to challenge ineligibility via appropriate proceedings; writ disposed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 01.09.2023 declaring application ineligible. No order as to costs.

C Subbamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

**_» '_*

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERv^fe^'^oXl TWO TWO THOUSAND THOUSAND AND AND TWENTY TWENTY THREE THREE jo fWW- .'f J V'l ---------------- PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2961 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

C Subbamma, W/o C.Venkataiah. Aged about 63 yrs, Occ Business R/o Kanimbedu Village, Pallipadu Taluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1- The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶12

The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶13

The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. Chittoor. Chittoor District.

¶14

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2*''* respondent in issuing proceedings No,41^98318/013-1/2021, dt.12,03.2022 insisting for submission of NOC before the 4 respondent for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner in an extent or 1,000 Hectors in Sy.Na140/9, 368/1, 5 and 6 of Nisankadurgam (Group), Surendranagaram Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal of Chittoor District is Illegal, arbitrary contrary to the mandate of Rule 35 of AP MMC Rules, 1966, apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to insist for submission of NOC for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner for Gravel, Road metal and building stone,

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to grant quarry lease to the petitioner in the land in Sy,No.140/9, in area 14.000 Hectors for gravel, Road metal and Building stone in Surendranagaram Village. Karvetinagaram Mandal of Chittoor District.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. P HEMACHANDRA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2961 of 2023

¶26

C.Subbamma, W/o. C.Venkataiah, Aged about 63 yeeirs, Occ: Business, R/o. Kanimbedu Village, Pallipadu Taluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu State.

¶27

... Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and four others.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Hema Chandra

¶32

Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : GP for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.5 : GP for Revenue

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶35

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

**... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings NO.4198318/D13-I/202I, dt. 12,03.2022 insisting for submission of NOC before the 4'*’ respondent for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner in an extent of 1.000

¶37

Page 2 of S

¶38

SRS, J W.P.No.2961 of 2023

¶39

Hectors in Sy.No. 140/9, 363/1, 5 and 6 of Nisankadurgam (Group), Surendranagaram Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal of Chittoor Disttrict is lUegal, arbitrary, contrary to the mandate of Rule 35 of AP MMC Rules, 1966 apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2"<» respondent not to insist for submission of NOC for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner for Gravel Road metal and building stone and pass such other order or orders ...”

¶40

Petitioner made application for grant of quarry lease for Gravel, Road Metal and Building Stone over an extent of 14.000 hectares in Sy.No. 140/9 of Surendranagaram Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology - 3*"^ respondent vide proceedings No.880/CTR/2019 dated 22.10.2019, rejected the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 before the 3^^ respondent. The 3''^ respondent vide D.Dis Proceedings No,4924325/D13-1/2021 dated 12,03.2022, allowed the appeal by setting aside the proceedings dated 22.10.2019.

¶41

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2"<* respondent issued proceedings No.4198318/D13-1/2021

¶42

Page 3 of 5

¶43

SRS, J W.P.No.2961 of 2023

¶44

dated 12.03.2022, insisting for submission of No Objection Certificate before the 4^ respondent for grant of quarry lease. However, the said proceedings are not placed before the Court.

¶45

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, deposed by the 3”^ respondent. Along with the counter affidavit the proceedings of District Mines and Geology Office vide proceedings No.7378/Ql/2016 dated 01.09.2023 is annexed. In the said proceedings, the application made by the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for Gravel, Road Metal and Building Stone over an extent of 14.000 hectares in Sy.no. 140/9 of Surendranagaram (Group Nisankadurgam) Village, was declared as ineligible.

¶46

Heard Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavit.

¶48

SRS J W,P,No,2961 of 2023

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

As seen from the proceedings of District Mines and Geology Office vide proceedings No.7378/Ql/2016 dated 01.09.2023, the application made by the petitioner was declared as ineligible. Since the petitioner’s application was declared as ineligible, petitioner has to challenge the same before appropriate authority. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 01.09.2023. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶52

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISJR^

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

sect Ionofficer

¶55

To, 1. Department of Mines and Geology, State of Andhra 0 buildings, Velagapudi. Amaravathi. ? Thp Geology. Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 3. The Deputy Director of Mmes and Geology, Chittoor Chittoor District 1 l^rector of Mines and Geology, Chittoor Chittoor District 5. The TahsildaG Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District 6. One CC to SRI, P HEMACHANDRA Advocate fOPUCl m mines AND GEOLOGY, High Court of Andhra rlaUcbll. [kJU I J 8.9 Thre^CD Copte^f^ REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14/09/2023

ORDER

WP.No.2961 of 2023

§ 2 2 NUV 2023
Current Section .

¶61

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

C Subbamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Subbamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudala Amara, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Harijana Subbamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Chand Basha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. P. Eswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sjk Infracon Private Limited (Formerly Satyavathi Minerals and Metals Limited), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sree Siva Satya Pigments Private Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh