Disposed

Sri Vijaya Durga Aadivaasi Granite and Stone Crusher, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/42264/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court closed a writ petition challenging a respondent's inaction on a quarry lease application. The Court found the application was previously rejected in 2016, rendering the petition redundant as the petitioner may challenge the non-communicated rejection order directly.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was closed; no specific relief granted in the text.

Sri Vijaya Durga Aadivaasi Granite and Stone… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 42264 OF 2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Vijaya Durga Aadivaasi Granite and Stone Crusher, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.M.Simhachalam, S/o.Jogulu, Aged 51 years, R/o. Main Road, Seethampeta, (P & M), Srikakulam district.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.l) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district.

¶12

Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 8th floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Project Director, ITDA, Seethampeta, Srikakulam^district.

¶15

Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam,^Srikakulam district

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶18

be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring inaction of Respondent No.7 in not passing orders on the application of the Petitioner dated 28.12.2010 for road metal and building stone in Sy.No.13 of Palavalasa village, Bamini Mandal, Srikakulam district, in over an extent of 20.000 hectares in Form - B under Rule 9 and the letter submitted to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology dated 21.01.2011 for treating the application dated 28.12.2010 for colour granite instead of road metal and building stone as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 54523 OF 2015)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology - Respondent No.7 to process the application of Petitioner dated 28.12.2010 for grant of road metal and building stone as colour granite in over an extent of 20.000 hectares in Sy.No.13 of Palavalasa village, Bamini Mandal, Srikakulam district, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:M/s N SHOBA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1,4,5,7: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondents No.2,6 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

APHC010347922015

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3310]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 42264/2015

¶33

Between:

¶34

Sri Vijaya Durga Aadivaasi Granite And Stone Crusher, ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

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

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.N SHOBA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 4.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;

¶44

¶45

¶46

“ declaring inaction of Respondent No.7 in not passing^ordersonthe application of the Petitioner dated 28.12.2010 for road metal and building stone in Sy.No.13 of Palavalasa village, Bamini Mandal, Srikakulam district, in over an extent of 20.000 hectares in Form - B under Rule 9 and the letter submitted to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology^{dated21.01.2011} for treating the application dated 28.12.2010 for colour granite instead of road metal and building stone as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and pass^{suchotherorder} or orders ”

¶47

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a tribe by caste and submitted application on 28.12.2010 for quarry lease for road metal building stone in Sy.No.13 of Palavalasa Village, Bamini^{Mandal,Srikakulam} District in over an extent of 200.000 hectares and the same was acknowledged by the 7^'^ respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in letter No.4120/Q/2010, dated 28.12.2010. Thereafter, the 7^^ respondent forwarded the said application to the Tahsildar, Palavalasa for necessary clarification and report. The petitioner also submitted a letter dated 21.01.2011 to the 7*^ respondent stating that he is also interested to get the quarry for colour granite for the said area applied,^{demarcatedonthesketch} on 28.12.2010, therefore requested to allow the application submitted as colour granite instead of road metal and building stone and willing to deposit any amount as per the guidelines. But, no orders are passed on the said application till date. Hence the present writ petition^isfiled.

¶48

¶49

On the other hand, the 7**^ respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, he stated that, no provision is available for conversion of applications from road metal to colour granite lease, as such. the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application by paying the requisite application fee and deposit amount. Further stated that the proposals of the petitioner firm including some other firms, were rejected by the 7^'^ respondent through File No.4119/Q/2010, dated 06.02.2016 as the mineral proved for grant of quarry leases for colour granite subject to^satisfaction of APMMC Rules, 1966 and other instructions issued by the Government^fromtime to time. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶50

Heard Mrs.Vijaya, learned counsel, representing Mrs.N.Shoba,^learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1, 4, 5 and 7.

¶51

Perused the material available on record.

¶52

On hearing the submissions of both learned counsel and upon perusing the contents of the counter, it appears that the quarry lease application of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2016 itself, but the same was not communicated and the order was also not served on the petitioner till date. 7. In view of the same, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication.

¶53

¶54

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, the petitioner firm is at liberty to challenge the said rejection order vide^{FileNo.4119/Q/2010,dated} 06.02.2016, if it is so aggrieved. There shall be no^{orderastocosts.}

¶56