Writ petition filed regarding prospecting license application dismissed for non-prosecution after an eight-year lapse since filing.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 19441 OF 2016
Between:
Bodduru Bhusana, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 48 years, Occ; Daily Wage Earner R/o. Ampavalli Village, Balijipeta Mandal, VizianagaramDistrict
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare Section 10A (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)AmendmentAct, 2015 (Act No.10 of 2015) as no application to the prospecting license
ft
application dated 09-08-2011 of the petitioner andfurtherdeclarethatSec. 10A (1) of Act No. 10 of 2015 is not retrospective in its application and consequently, set aside the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in Memo.No.1515/M-lll(2)/2016, dated 09-03-2016 as it illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further direct to Respondent No.1 and 2 to re-consider the application of the petitioner dated 09-08-2011 for grating prospecting license. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 23850 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 not to proceed further for grating prospecting license to third parties in Sy.No.5 admeasuring Ac.200 in Padmapuram Village, PachipentaMandal.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G UMA PRASAD REPRESENTING SRI S.V.S KRISHNA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR MINESANDGEOLOGY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)
The Court made the following: ORDER
[3310]
APHC010372512016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 19441/2016
Between:
Bodduru Bhusana,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.S.V.S KRISHNA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
2.HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)
The Court made the following order:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of
India, seeking the following relief;
I
“....to issue appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare Section 10A (1( of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Amendment Act ,2015 as no application to the prospecting license application dated 09.08.2011 of the petitioner and further declare that Sec.lOA 1 of Act No. 10 of 2015 is not retrospective in its application and
T
consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3^^ Respondent in Memo No 1515/M 1112/2016 dated 09.03.2016 as it illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further direct to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 09.08.2011 for grating prospecting license and pass. .. ”
- On hearing, Mr G.Uma Prasad, learned counsel representingon behalf of Mr S.V.S.Krishna Prasad, learned counselforthepetitionersubmits that learned counsel for the petitioner has given No-ObjectionVakalattothe petitioner long back.
- Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, ifany,shallstand
closed.
SDI- P.VINOD KUMAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER
To
TC
ifi
T
v,\
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/12/2024
ORDER
WP.No.19441 of 2016
^ 0 3 FEB 2025 f)
lO, ^
^ . Current Section
^£esPATcy;^^
DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION, WITHOUT COSTS
Bodduru Bhusana
Union of India
State of Andhra Pradesh
K. Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
