Remanded

Hillock Hotels (P) ,Ltd., v. The State.of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024WP/14320/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a revision rejection order for being arbitrary and lacking reasons. The Court held that the revisionary authority failed to exercise discretion on delay condonation as per statutory rules. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reasoned orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.02.2016 set aside; matter remitted to the revisionary authority for reconsideration and reasoned orders within three months; impugned demand notice not to be given effect t

Hillock Hotels (P) ,Ltd., Vs The State.of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010156212016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSD A Y ,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBE R TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14320 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Hillock Hotels (p) ,ltd.,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

1.P VEERRAJU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶15

1.GP FOR INDUSTR I ES & COMMERCE (AP)

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Writ Petition i s filed under Article 226 of the Consti t ution of India to

¶19

issue writ of mandamus,

¶20

“declaring the order of 1 st respondent dated 06.02.2016 issued in lette r No. 12082/ M.1(2)/2015-1, rejectin g the revision petition with delay condonation p e titioner filed under rule 35-A APM M C Rules by the petitioner herein, as arbitrar y , illegal and unlawful and also to de c lare that the order of 3^rd respondent dated 24.0 7 .2014 issued in letter No. 865-3/V&E / Vig/VSP/2013, as arbitrary, illegal and unlawfu l and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or d ers”.

¶21

Heard Mr. P. Veerraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned Assistant Government Pleader, Industries and Commerce for the

¶22

respondents.

¶23

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated 21.06.2013 alleging that the petitioner has utilized Minor Minerals more than 3,318 cubic meters in its land which was originally sanctioned vide proceedings No. 1501/Q/2011 by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. The petitioner has submitted explanation along with all documents on 04.08.2014, but the same was disregarded by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed revision under rule 35-A of Mines and Minerals Rules before the Government along with delay condonation petition, which was rejected by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 06.02.2016 without assigning any reasons, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶24

The Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents mainly contended that there was excess utilization by excavation of rock by 3181.95 cubic meters. Therefore, issued show cause notice to submit documentary evidence for having paid seigniorage fee for the recorded stock, but the petitioner has not submitted the documentary evidence of the said stock and violated the Rule 26(3)(ii) of APMMC Rules, 1966. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Perused the record.

¶26

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents have not consider the revision preferred by the petitioner and simply returned the same by way of a letter dated 06.02.2016 is highly illegal and arbitrary. Further, it is contended that in similar circumstances of this case in nature, this Court passed an order dated 23.03.2016 in W.P.No.9558 of 2016, which is squarely covered and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.

¶27

It is curious to note that proviso to Rule 35-C of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (in short ‘the Rules’) empowers the revisionary authority to entertain the revision after the stipulated period of two months/ ninety days specified in Rule 35-A of the Rules of 1966, if the revision petitioner satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the specified time.

¶28

In the light of said statutory provision, it is for the revisionary authority to consider on the individual facts of the case before it as to whether sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay, if there is any. In the event no such sufficient cause is made out, the revisionary authority would have to reject the revision by refusing to condone the delay. It would not be open to the revisionary authority to return the revision without exercising its judicious discretion under the said stated statutory provision one way or the other. The letter dated 06.02.2016 returning the revision petition filed by the petitioner without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.02.2016 is liable to be set aside.

¶29

In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ

¶30

petition, while setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2016 issued by the 1^st respondent and the matter is remitted to the revisionary authority for reconsideration in accordance with law and for passing appropriate reasoned orders thereon, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶31

this order. The impugned demand notice shall not be given effect to.

¶32

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶33

shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶37

Date: 04.12.2024

¶38

Hillock Hotels (P) ,Ltd., v. The State.of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hillock Hotels (P) ,Ltd., 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

M/s. A.V.M. College Staff Cooperative House Building Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Umamaheswari, W/o.Ramakoti, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gantayath Abhinash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntur Viswaswe Rao, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Siri Minerals, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs Gunapati Mithila Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh