Buddineni Rohan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in executing the lease deed and issuing work orders in favour of the writ petitioner, in pursuance to the. transfer of quarry lease by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings No. 9793321/D. 1 l-SSS/2024 dated 07.01.2025, and the petitioner having paid all the required fees, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2 nd and 3'^'^ respondents to execute the lease deed and issue work permits for quarrying the mine to an extent of 2.985 hectares in Sy. No. 50 of Ganganapalli Village, Gorantia Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to forthwith direct the respondents to execute the lease deed and issue work permits for quarrying the mine to an extent of 2.985 hectares in Sy. No. 50 of Ganganapalli Village, Gorantia Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following Order:

¶20

APHC010427482025

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

[3458]

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 22355/2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

1.BUDDINENI ROHAN, S/0 B. CHAKRADHAR RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/0 1-10, ELIGAID MANDAL, DOOLIKATTA, KARIMNAGAR - 505 525.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶33

2.THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶34

3.THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction,^{moreparticularlyone} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction^{oftherespondents} in executing the lease deed and issuing work orders in favour of the writ petitioner, in pursuance to the. transfer of quarry^{leasebythe2ndrespondent} vide Proceedings No. 9793321/D.ll-SSS/2024 dated 07.01.2025, and the petitioner having paid all the required fees, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(l)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and

¶37

2

¶38

consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to execute the lease deed and issue work permits for quarrying the mine to an extent of 2.985 hectares in Sy. No. 50 of Ganganapalli Village, Gorantia Mandal, Anantapur District, and pass

¶39

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶40

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 forthwith direct the respondents to execute the lease deed and issue work permits for quarrying the mine to an extent of 2.985 hectares in Sy. No. 50 of Ganganapalli Village, Gorantia Mandal, Anantapur District, and pass

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents.

¶48

Challenging the inaction of the respondents in executing the lease deed in respect of the subject land pursuant to the transfer of quarry lease by the respondent No.2, vide proceedings No.9793321/D.11-S SS/2024, dated 07.01.2025, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶49

It is contended that the respondent No.1 issued proceedings granting quarry lease in favour of one Mr. Babu, for extraction of black granite in respect of the subject land. The said lea'se was for a period of twenty years

¶50

3

¶51

r

¶52

with effect from 05.08.2009 to 04.08.2029. Subsequently,^{thesaidleasewas} transferred in favour of one Mr. Bala Subramanyam in 2010. After operating the same for some period, Mr. Bala Subramanyam could not pay the dues to the Government on account of his financial issues. Thus the respondents have determined the lease vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said proceedings Mr. Bala Subramanyam filed an appeal before^the 1 St respondent. The said appeal was allowed restoring the^{leaseinfavourofthe} said Bala Subramanyam. Subsequently on account of illness, Mr. Bala Subramanyam could not conduct quarry operations, thus the same was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings of the 2"*^ respondent, dated 07.01.2025. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was required to remit statutory remittances such as Dead Rent, Cess etc.,^{thesamewaspaidbythe} petitioner belatedly. After remitting the amount, the petitioner vide representation, dated 19.06.2025 requested the respondent^No.2toextend the lease. Upon the said representation, the respondent No.2 called for remarks of the respondent No.3 on the representation,^dated 19.06.2025. However, the respondent No.3 did not submit any remarks^as called for. Assailing the inaction of the respondents in executing^the lease agreementⁱⁿ favour of the petitioner, the instant writ petition^isfiled.

¶53

When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received^{byherinthecase.A} perusal of the same would reflect that it has not been denied about the

¶54

4

¶55

representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner and the proceedings of the respondent No.2 calling for remarks of the respondent No.3. However, it is stated that the petitioner was asked to file the required documents such as Bank Guarantee and receipts in token of payment of the required remittances. However, the same was paid belatedly on 19-06-2025 and in this regard sent an e-mail to the respondent No.3 on 20.06.2025, which was after submission of the revocation proposals by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 for non compliance of the earlier directions to submit the required document for execution of the lease deed. Thus, submits that the petitioner did not show any inclination to pay the required amounts within the stipulated period. Thus argues that there is inaction on the part of the respondents in executing the lease deed and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶56

Having regard to the contentions advanced, the grievance^ofthe writ petitioner is that although the respondent No.2 acting on the letter submitted by the petitioner, dated 19.06.2025 called for remarks/report of the respondent No.3, the same has not yet been submitted until the same is forwarded, the respondent No.2 would not be in a position to pass appropriate orders for granting extension of the time period and consequent execution of the lease deed.

¶57

Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.3 to submit a report as called for by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings, dated

¶58

5

¶59

19.06.2025, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon receipt of the report from the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner on 07.01.2025, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.

¶60