Allowed

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2024WP/12872/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A quarry lease holder's appeal against determination of his mining lease was dismissed without an effective personal hearing. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to pass fresh reasoned orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity, within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2015 set aside; matter remanded to 2nd respondent for fresh reasoned orders after hearing petitioner within four months; no costs.

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12872 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o.P.V.Subba Reddy, R/o.D.No.26/1/188,^NGO colony, Bakthavatsala Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary Department, of Mines & Geology.

¶12

The Director of Mines and Geology, 8*^ floor, BRKR Bhavaft),Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶14

The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore,^{SPSRNelloreDistrict.}

¶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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2"'^ respondent in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 3 rd respondent in proceedings No.466/Q/AD(NLR)/2005 dated^{23.4.2013vide} proceedings in D.Dis.Proceedings No.33785/R2-1/AH/2013 dated 11.3.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 16920 OF 2015)

¶18

, ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in^{thecircumstances} £=^^%tated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court ^ay be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 2"^^^{respondentdated} 11.3.2015 in D.Dis.proceedings No.33785/R2-1/AH/2013 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. SUBODH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

APHC010081412015

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶23

AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3310]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

MONDAY .THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 12872/2015

¶30

Between:

¶31

P.venkata Krishna Reddy,s/o.p.v.subba Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.CSUBODH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndiafor}

¶41

the following relief:

¶42

“ to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^{writordirectiondeciaringtheactionof the2ndrespondent} in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner^{agaisnttheorderspassedbythe3rdrespondentinproceedings} No 466/Q/ADNLR/2005 dated 23.4.2013 vide proceedings^{inD.Dis.ProceedingsNo33785/R21/AH/2013,dated} 11.3.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles^{ofnatural justiceandconsequentlysetasidethesameand} pass....’’

¶43

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4'^^{respondenthereinvide}

¶44

proceedings in Procs.No.466/Q/2005, dated 22.02.2007^{accordedsanctionto} the petitioner for commencement of quarrying operations^{forextractionofroad} metal, building stone and boulders over an extent of^6.00Acres (2.428

¶45

¶46

Hectares) in Sy.No.31/P of Veerlangunapadu Village, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Thereafter, the S'"' respondent herein vide proceedings No.466/Q/AD(NLR)/2005 dated 23.04.2013 determined the lease held by the petitioner under Ruie 31(iV)„ 17(i) of APMMC Ruies 1996 which was granted by the 4’*^ respondent vide proceedings No.466/Q/2005 dated 23.07.2013. Further, it is stated that the proceedings of the 2"^^ respondent in D.Dis Proceedings No.33785/R2-1/AH/2013 dated 11.03.2015 was received by the petitioner on 27.03.2015 wherein it is stated that, personal hearing of the appeai was heid on 31.01.2015, as petitioner was not present, basing on the report submitted by the 4"' respondent, his appeai was dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶47

Heard Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.

¶48

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner white reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the 2”'^ respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶49

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this writ petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

L -

¶51

¶52

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and also inclined to remand back the matter to the 2'^^ respondent for proper appreciation.

¶53

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in D.Dis. Proceedings No.33785/R2-1/AH/2013 dated 11.03.2015 of the 2"^^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2'’'^respondent to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ..

¶54

A. ,r

¶55

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

To,

¶58

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶59

Bund'i’Hydera^d"®* Bhava-; Near Tank

¶60

The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶61

The Asst.Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. One CC to Sri C. Subodh, Advocate [OPDC] [OU1T High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶62

Three C.D. Copies.

Gnr

■'V

HIGH COURT

DATED;09/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.12872 of 2015

0 7 MAK 2125
, Current Section ^

¶70

7"-

¶71

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba Reddy 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

Yaganti Singaraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sathibabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Revuri Kanakadurga Vs the State of Ap

Jatawath Srinu Naik S/o. Keerya Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sujitha Blue Metal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary