Disposed

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Sept 2024WP/8002/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A quartzite lessee sought dispatch permits withheld by the Mines authorities pending his appeal against a seigniorage demand. The High Court directed the Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of the appeal dated 25.04.2014 with reasoned orders within three months and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR i
Oi
m

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8002 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah, aged 40 years, Un-employee R/o Karakambadi Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce (M-lll) Dept. AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Director of Mines & Geology Andhra, Pradesh, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in not issuing dispatch permits to the Petitioner for carrying out

¶16

¶17

mining operations in the leased area over an extent^{of15.336hectors} in Sy.No. 153/1, situated in Karakambadi Village, Renigunta^{Mandal,Chittoor} District, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the judgment dt. 20.03.2014 in W.P.No.17290 of 2009 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner^{fortransportationof} the quartzite from the leased area in Sy. No.153/1,^{withoutinsisting} for instructions or pendency of Appeal No. 14424 before^the 2nd Respondent, and with all other consequential benefits monetary^orotherwise.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 10554 OF 2015)

¶19

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 grant interim directions directing the 3rd Respondent to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner forthwith in respect^{oftheleasedarea} in Sy. No. 153/1, Karakambadi village accounts, Renigunta^{Mandal,Chittoor} District, in the light of the judgment dt. 20.03.2014 in W.P.No. 17290 of 2009, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner{s): SRI V JAGAPATHI

¶21

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

¶22

The Court made the following; ORDER

APHC010675382015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH T- AT AMARAVATI 02^-5. (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3310]

¶28

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 8002/2015

¶32

Between:

¶33

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah ...PETITIONER

¶34

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

¶35

1.V JAGAPATHI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶41

seeking the following relief:

¶42

“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd Respondent herein in not issuing dispatch permits to^{thePetitionerfor} carrying out mining operations In the leased area over an^extentof 15.336 hectors In Sy. No. 153/1 situated In Karakambadi Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the judgment, dt 20.03.2014 in W.P.No.17290^of2009

¶43

¶44

and consequently direct the 3 rd Respondent to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for transportation of the quartzite^{fromtheleasedarea} in Sy.No.153/1 without Insisting for instructions or pendency^ofAppeal No. 14424 before the 2 nd Respondent and with all other consequential benefits monetary or otherwise.

¶45

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the land^{admeasuringan} extent of Acs.44.95 cents in RS.No.153/1 situated in^{KarakambadiVillage} accounts, Renigunta Mandal was the ancestral property^{ofthepetitionerand} the family members of the petitioner are in possession^{andenjoymentofthe} said landed property as on date. While so at the instance of the then Tahsildar Enigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, Sri K.Venkata Ramana, the forest officials have started interfering with the possession and enjoymentⁱⁿ respect of the said lands in Sy.No.153/1. Aggrieved by the same, O.S.No.1316 of 2003 was filed before the Principal^{JuniorCivilJudge,Tirupati} seeking declaration and injunction against the District^{Collector,Tahsildarand} the DFO concerned and the learned Judge by order, dated 05.07.2004 granted temporary injunction in their favour and the^{samewasconfirmedby} the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in CMA.No.35 of 2004. Since the subject land was unfit for cultivation, the petitioner^{appliedtotheGovernment} for grant of mining lease for extracting quantize mineral^{inthesubjectland.}

¶46

The Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 28.08.2004 granting mining lease in favor of^{thepetitionerforaperiod} of 20 years for extraction of quartize over an extent^{of45.336hectorsinthe} patta lands in Sy.No.153/1. The Assistant Director^{hasnotexecutedleasein}

¶47

¶48

favour of the petitioner on the sole ground that O.S.No.1316 of 2003 ISi; pending in respect of the said lands. In the mean\A/hile, as the time for execution of the lease deed in pursuance of the GO has elapsed, the petitioners has filed W.P.No.25579 of 2007 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 26.02.2008 extended the time upto 30.06.2008 for execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, 3'^'^ respondent has executed mining lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2008 for a period of 20 years i.e., 24.06.2008 to 23.06.2028. While so, the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, with an intention to circumvent the injunction order granted in favour of the petitioner submitted a false report, dated 15.12.2008 requesting the District Collector, Chittoor to instruct the 3''^ respondent to stop mining operations in the said lands in Sy.No.153/1 and to cancel the mining lease granted in favour in respect of the said lands. In pursuance of the said letter. Respondent No3 has stopped issuing dispatch permits to the petitioner.

¶49

In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17290 of 2009, seeking to set aside the letter, dated 10.06.2009 of the District Collector. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition granted interim suspension of the said letter, dated 10.06.2009. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction that as long as the lease is subsisting, the petitioner is entitled to continue mining operations in the land and those operations cannot be stopped unless the lease is cancelled in accordance with law. On the basis of the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi, Respondent No.3 has issued a notice, dated 20.03.2010 calling upon the

¶50

¶51

petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken and the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the same.

¶52

Long thereafter, the 3'^^ respondent has issued a demand notice in the month of July. 2019 calling upon the petitioner to pay Normal Seigniorage fee and ten times penalty amounting to Rs.8,37,40,800/-. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.19068 of 2010 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner^{toavailalternative} remedy of appeal.

¶53

In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has filed appeal dated 25.04.2014 before the Director of Mines and Geology/2'''' respondent herein seeking to set aside the demand notice and it is still pending. Aggrieved by the action of the O"' respondent in refusing to issue dispatch permits inspite of the direction of this Court in W.P.No.17290 of 2009, dated 20.03.2014, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3 A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of 3''' respondent. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that petitioner failed to file an application before the 1 respondent under Rule 28(2) and not furnished statutory permission obtained from the respective Departments and also not furnished the Renewed Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- as required under 23F of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since the mining lease was already cancelled vide

¶54

¶55

G,O.Ms.No,116, Industries and Commerce(M.II) Department dated 28.11.2015, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

Heard Mr Koutilya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr V.Jagapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19068 of 2010, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Director of Mines and Geology/2 nd respondent herein seeking to set aside the demand notice. But the 2^^^ respondent has not considered the appeal and it is pending till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17290 of 2009, seeking to set aside the said letter, dated 10.06.2009 of the District Collector and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that as long as the lease is subsisting, the petitioner is entitled to continue mining operations in the land and those operations cannot be stopped unless the lease is cancelled in accordance with law. But the 3'^^ respondent is refusing to issue dispatch permits, which is illegal, arbitrary and against to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.17290 of 2009. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders.

¶57

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same.

¶58

¶59

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels,^{the2'"'^} respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 25.04.2014 and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed^of.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/-K. SRINIVASA RAJU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ' SE' FFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

The Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce (M-lll) Department State of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati.

¶65

The Director of Mines & Geology Andhra, Pradesh, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶66

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor.

¶67

One CC to SRI V JAGAPATHI Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Two CCs to GP for MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Court^ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶69

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/09/2024

ORDER

o\ WP.No.8002 of 2015 o 1 'I OCT 202^ Currem s>ecuon ^ . !:»^SPATCy^^

¶75

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Siddala Ravi Babu, S/o Late Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Anitha Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Padmavathi Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Posa Sindhuri Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Vengaiah, Nellore Dist and Another Vs Prl Secy, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

Somala Kushala Vs the State of Ap

G. Nadipi Sommanna, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh