Disposed

D Naga Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2023WP/652/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Assistant Director and illegal mining activities. The court directed the Director of Mines and Geology to strictly follow legal procedures when entertaining a pending application for lease transfer in favor of a third party, ensuring the petitioner is informed.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the 2nd Respondent to follow procedure strictly while entertaining the application for transfer of unexpired lease and to intimate the petitioner.

D Naga Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF^{ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA^{REDDY SATTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 652 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.Naga Lakshmi, W/o Late D. Venkata Naidu, Aged about^41years,Occ. Household, R/o Door No.2-1, Kadarampalli Village, Rayadurgam^Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist.

¶11

The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶12

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

¶13

The Registrar of Firms, Ananthapur

¶14

R.R Associates, a Partnership Firm, Represented by its Managing Partner, P. Raghavendra Reddy, S/o P. Bheemasena Reddy, Aged 42 years, Occ. Business, Rio Nagireddypalli Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶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 a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in not disposing off the Petitioners representation dated 23/05/2022 and not stopping illegal mining as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith dispose of the Petitioners representation dated 23/05/2022, to stop issuance of transit permits.

¶17

IA 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 please to direct the 3rd Respondent to stop issuance of transit permits in favour of the 5th Respondent and be pleased to pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent 4 : GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.652 OF 2023

¶25

Between:.

¶26

D.Naga Lakshmi, W/o. Late D.Venkata Naidu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Door No.2-1, Kadarampalli Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

¶27

Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and four others.

¶30

Respondents

¶31

Counsels for the petitioner Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy Counsel for the respondents GP for Mines and Geology, GP for Industries and Commerce, GP for Stamps and Registration

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶34

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶35

"... to issue a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in not disposing off the Petitioners representation dated 23/05/2022 and not

¶36

Page 2 of 9

¶37

SRS, 1 W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶38

stopping illegal mining as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith dispose of the Petitioners representation dated 23/05/2022, to stop issuance of transit permits and be pleased to passsuch other or further orders.."

¶39

The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner is legally wedded wife of D.Venkata Naidu, died on 09.10.2007. D.Venkata Naidu is the partner of respondent No.5 firm and invested 22% of fund of business. After the death of husband, petitioner orally informed respondent No.3 regarding illegal mining but no action was taken. Petitioner made representation dated 23.05.2022, to respondent No.3 stating that respondent No.4 is not earmarking her share after death of her husband and making arrangements for granting sub-lease.

¶40

Respondent No.5 granted quarry lease for mining of minor mineral Black Granite in an extent of 3.00 hectares in Sy.No.378 of Muthukuru Village, Gudibanda Mandal, Ananthapur District vide proceedings No.47198/R4-1/2011, dated 03.03.2017. Respondent No.3 addressed letter to respondent No.4 to furnish information regarding the reconstitution of respondent No.5 firm. The share of husband of the petitioner does not come to an end automatically in view of his death. With these averments writ petition was filed.

¶41

Page 3 of 9

¶42

SRS, J W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶43

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.3 deposed to the counter affidavit.^Inthe counter affidavit it was contended, inter-alia, that M/s. R.R.Associates - respondent No.S was granted quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 3.00 hectares in Sy.No.378 of Muthukuru Village, Gudibanda Mandal, Ananthapur District for a period of 20 years vide proceedings No.47198/ R4-1 / 2011, dated 30.03.2017 by the Direction of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam - respondent No.2. Lease was executed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur - respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.5712/GQL/BG/2011 dated 01.05.2011. Lease period is up to^30.04.2037.

¶44

On 23.05.2022, petitioner informed respondent No.3^about the firm and death of her husband. Petitioner also^intimated about her husband holding 22% share in the firm.^Shealso pleaded that she came to know about the efforts made by^other partners to grant sub-lease. Thus, petitioner requested the authority not to grant sub-lease. On verification of copy of the partnership deed which was submitted at the time of granting lease, it was noticed that partnership deed was^executedon 22.11.2011, among P.Raghavendra Reddy (First Part), K.Ranga

¶45

Page 4 of 9

¶46

SRS, J W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶47

Rao (Second Part), D.Venkata Naidu (Third Part) and G.Eswar Reddy (Forth Part) having shares 22%, 34%, 22% and 22% respectively. All the partners shall be managing and working partners of the firm and the partnership was not registered. Respondent No.3 intimated the Registrar of Firms - respondent No.4 Ananthapuram about the representation dated 23.05.2022, made by the petitioner and requested to furnish details of M/ s. R.R.Associates. But till date, no information was received from respondent No.4.

¶48

Respondent No.5 filed application seeking transfer of quarry lease on 01.11.2021, in favour of M/s. Indian Granites Exports, represented by its Managing Partner Sri C.Revanna, Bangalore for the unexpired portion of lease period up to 30.04.2037 through online and the same is pending. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are nothing to do with the disputes among the partners of the partnership firm. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶49

Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶50

Page 5 of 9

¶51

SRS, J W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that husband of the petitioner died on 09.10.2017 and he had invested 22% in the business. After the death of husband, application was made to transfer the lease in favour of third party without the consent of the petitioner. Petitioner made representation on 23.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that under Rule 12 (viii) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short `the Act'), lease cannot be transferred without the consent of one of

¶53

the partners.

¶54

Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on the other hand, would contend that lease was granted in favour of the firm represented by its Managing Partner. Application was made to respondent No.3 to transfer quarry lease in favour of M/s. Indian Granites Exports on 01.11.2021 and the same is pending. Further contended that, pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner on 23.05.2022, respondent No.3 addressed letter to respondent No.4, sought for information regarding. the firm and its particulars. Learned Government Pleader would also submit that inter-se disputes among the

¶55

Page 6 of 9

¶56

SRS, J W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶57

partners of the firm have to be settled in the competent Civil Court.

¶58

As seen from the record, there is no dispute that quarry lease was granted in favour of M/s. R.R.Associates, a partnership firm, for Black Granite over an extent of 3.00 hectares in Sy.No.378 of Muthukuru Village, Gudibanda Mandal, Ananthapur District. Lease was granted for a period of 20 years from 01.05.2017 to 30.04.2037. It is also an admitted fact that, going by the record, petitioner's husband is having 22% share in the firm. Petitioner's husband died on 09.10.2017. Respondent No.5, in whose favour the lease was granted, made application seeking transfer of quarry lease in favour of M/s. Indian Granites Exports, represented by its Managing Partner Sri C.Revanna, Bangalore for the unexpired portion of lease period up to 30.04.2037, and the same is pending.

¶59

Rule 12 (h) (viii) (c) of the Act which is applicable to the facts of the case is extracted herewith:

¶60

"In case of Lease granted to a partnership firm, such firm, with the prior approval of the Director of Mines and Geology, may be permitted to add new partners into the firm so that the original partners of the firm together shall continue to hold 51% of their share and voting rights in the

¶61

Page 7 of 9

¶62

SRS, J W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶63

reconstituted firm till expiry of Lease or subsequent renewal Lease period.

¶64

The inter-se ratio of shares among original partners shall not be changed during such a transfer. The Lessee firm shall effect such changes in the constitution of the firm as required under the Indian Partnership Act 1932 and intimate the same to the Director of Mines & Geology within 60 days from the date of such changes made."

¶65

The extracted Rule does not indicate anything regarding the transfer of lease in favour of the third party. Rule 12 (h) (viii) (c) of the Rules deals with the induction of new partners and changes qua re-constitution of firm.

¶66

If the partners of the firm are not accounting to the share of husband of the petitioner, petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, has to approach Civil Court to redress her grievance. In fact, as noted supra, respondent No.3 addressed letter to respondent No.4, seeking information regarding registration of partners of the firm and the same is awaiting. In respect of the inter-se disputes among the partners, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India normally shall resolve the disputes since it requires evidence.

¶67

Page 8 of 9

¶68

SRS, 1 W.P.No.652 of 2023

¶69

In view of the discussion supra, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent that while entertaining the application seeking transfer of unexpired lease in favour of 5th respondent firm, 2nd respondent shall follow the procedure strictly in accordance with law and intimate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

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

¶71

SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY. REGISTRAR

¶72

//TRUE COPY// C. SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To,

¶74

The Principal Secretary,^{Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department, State Of} Andhra Pradesh, A.P.^{Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist.}

¶75

The Director of Mines and^{Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh,} Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶76

The Assistant^Director of^{Mines and Geology, Ananthapur, Ananthapur} District.

¶77

The Registrar of Firms,^Ananthapur

¶78

R.R Associates, a^{Partnership Firm, Represented by its Managing Partner, P.} Raghavendra Reddy, S/o P.^{Bheemasena Reddy, Aged 42 years, Occ.} Business, R/o Nagireddypalli^{Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuram} District.

¶79

One CC to SRI SIVAPRASAD^{REDDY VENATI Advocate [OPUC]}

¶80

Two CCs to GP FOR MINES^{AND GEOLOGY ,High Court Of Andhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶81

Two CCs to GP FOR^{STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS ,High Court Of Andhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶82

Two CD Copies

Cyr U

GSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/08/2023

ORDER

WP.No.652 of 2023

DISPOSED OF WP WITHOUT COSTS

D Naga Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Naga Lakshmi v. the State of Ap

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

Bali Reddy Venkateswara Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D Ravi Vs State of Ap

Basheerun Khatun Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S C B C Godavari D Form Patta Lanka Bhumula Development Society Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pathipati Foods Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Redyam Venkata Rami Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh