Allowed

M/s. Maruthi Marine Services, v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Apr 2023WP/31298/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare a government order and lease termination notice illegal. The court disposed of the matter by passing identical directions to those in a related prior writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Entire survey and ratified lease agreement process to be completed within three months; respondents directed to enter ratified lease for vacant land.

M/s. Maruthi Marine Services… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.31298 of 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“....to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No. 2 dated 09.01.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential notice of termination of lease dated 05.11.2011 in Proc No DoP/D3/1871/2008 issued by the respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal, offending article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to levy the enhanced rates of lease charges prescribed under the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 2 dated 09.01.2009 to the petitioners and continue to collect the lease charges as levied and covenanted in the lease deed dated 28.05.2008 after duly clearing the land of the under ground pipes to enable the petitioners to develop the land for operations..”

¶6

2 Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner firm has submitted that subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by subject matter in W.P.No. 31190 of 2015. The said Writ Petition is allowed on 12.04.2023 with the following directions:-

¶7

¶8

“21. In view of the same, this court feels it appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned notice dated 05.11.2011 by directing the respondents to enter into ratified lease agreement only with regard to the area of vacant land, for the remaining period, as per the terms and conditions of the original lease agreement dated 20.05.2008, with the following directions:-

¶9

(1) The respondents shall conduct a joint survey to the land allotted and leased out to the petitioner firm in the presence of the petitioner firm duly putting the firm on notice.

¶10

(2) After completion of survey, the respondents shall enter into a ratified lease agreement with the petitioner firm for the extent which can be put to use by the petitioner firm for construction of the storage tanks, on the same terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 20.05.2008.

¶11

(3) In view of the pendency of the writ petition and in view of the interim orders granted in the said writ petition, though the possession was with the petitioner firm, as the petitioner firm cannot use the land for constructing the storage tanks for which they have entered into lease agreement with the respondents, the petitioner firm is at liberty to make a fresh application to the respondents seeking extension of the lease period for a further period of 30 years and the said request may be considered by the respondents keeping in view the above observations.

¶12

¶13

(4) The entire process of conducting survey and entering into a ratified lease agreement shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶15

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner firm has requested to issue similar directions in this writ petition also.

¶16

Learned Government Pleader has not opposed for passing similar order in this writ petition also.

¶17

In view of the same, this writ petition is also allowed in the same identical lines as indicated in the order dated

¶18

12.04.2023 issued in writ petition No.31190 of 2011. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

The office is directed to enclose a copy of the order dated

¶20

12.04.2023 issued in W.P.No. 31190 of 2011 to this order.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

12.04.2023 Psr

¶23

____________________________________ SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶24

¶25

201

¶26

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶27

(Allowed)

¶28

Writ Petition No.31298 of 2011

¶29

Date: 12.04.2023

¶30

Psr.

M/s. Maruthi Marine Services, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Maruthi Marine Services, v. The State of A.P.

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

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varampati Amarnath Reddy Vs the State of Ap

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Potnuri Sri Devi, Vs The Union of India

M/s. Golden Cygnet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of A.P.