Shirdi Sai Stone Crushers Vs the State of Ap

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2704 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Shirdi Sal Stone Crushers, a sole proprietary^concern. Rep. by its Proprietor, K.Sivarama Krishna, S/o. Kasi Viswanadham,^{Aged51years,R/o.} Gouripatnam, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{RevenueDepartment,} Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶11

The District Collector, W.G.District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, W.G.District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Devarapally Mandal, W.G.District.

¶14

The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{MinesandGeology-} Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶15

The Director of Mines and Geology, State of A.P. ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶16

The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada,^{E.G.District,A.P.}

¶17

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru,^{W.G.District.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 such appropriate writ^{orderordirectionmore} so particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring^{theclaimofthe}

¶20

respondents 3 & 4 with regard to taking possession of the land admeasuring 4-05 hectares in R.S.No. 90/2 of Kondagudem village, Devarapalli mandal, W.G.District on 27-05-2018 and the consequential order of the 7th respondent dated 24-10-2018 in proceedings No. 6237/Q3/2005 rejecting the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner^{dated20-02-2017on} the basis of the said claim of the respondents 3 and 4 as not only arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the order of the 5th respondent in GO Ms No. 163, Industries and commerce department dated 16-11-2017,^{butalsoinviolation} of principles of natural justice and settled legal principles and consequently set aside the same.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

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 respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 4-05 hectares in RS No. 90/2 of Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition by this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶24

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 respondents 5 to 8 not to grant either quarry lease or any other permit to any third party in respect of the land admeasuring 4-05 hectares in RS No. 90/2 of Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari District pending disposal of the Writ Petition by this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARI SREEDHAR REPRESENTING SRI M RADHAKRISHNA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

T

¶28

f*'

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8; GP FOR MINES^&GEOLOGY

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

APHC010059172019

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶33

[3310]

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVP

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 2704/2019

¶39

Between;

¶40

Shirdi Sai Stone Crushers ...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

1.M RADHAKRISHNA

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶46

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶47

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶48

The Court made the following Order:

¶49

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the^Constitution of

¶50

India, seeking the following relief:

¶51

to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to taking possession of the land admeasuring 4-05 hectares in R.S.No.90/2 of Kondagudem village, Devarapalli mandal.^West Godavari District on 27-05-2018 and the consequential^orderof the respondent dated 24-10-2018 in proceedings

¶52

2

¶53

p

¶54

NO.6237/Q3/2005 rejecting the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner dated 20-02-2017 on the basis of^thesaidclaim of the respondents 3 and 4 as not only arbitrary, illegal^and contrary to the order of the S'" respondent in G.O.Ms.No.163, Industries and commerce department dated 16-11-2017^butalso in violation of principles of natural Justice and settled^legal principles and consequently set aside the same....”

¶55

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease over an extent of 4.05 hectares in R.S.No.90/2, Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari district^{bythe7*''respondent} for a period of ten years, which is valid till 23.05.2017.^The petitioner I applied for renewal of said lease. The petitioner was^{grantedanother} quarry lease over an extent of Ac.1.259 in R.S.No.90/2,^{88,13/1,13/8of} Kondagudem Village, Devarapally Mandal, West Godavari^{district,whichis} valid till 23.10.2013. After expiry of said lease, the petitioner surrendered the above said leased area to the 3^*^ respondent and^{on23.12.2014,the} 3^'^ respondent released the Security Deposit relating^{tothesurrendered} lease to the petitioner. When the Vigilance Department^{issuednoticesto} the petitioner asking the petitioner to furnish proof^of payment^ofceiling surplus land amount, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37245 of 2016. During the i pendency of the above said writ petition, the 8^^ respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing dispatch permits on 25.03.2017, hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.13238 of 2017 and^{thisCourtvideorder} dated 28.04.2017 granted interim direction to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner subject to petitioner furnishing unconditional bank guarantee for

¶56

3

¶57

Rs.63,30,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the same. While so, the 8‘^ respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.04.2017 alleging certain violations in respect of the lease relating to 4.05 hectares in R.S.No.90/2 of Kondagudem Village. The petitioner submitted explanation on 01.05.2017 requesting for certain documents. Without furnishing any documents, the 8**^ respondent issued another show-cause notice dated 06.05.2017. The petitioner submitted explanation on 16.05.2017 requesting to furnish certain information and documents. Without furnishing any information and documents, the 8*" respondent issued demand notice vide No.4441/Q1/2005, dated 17.06.2017 under Rule 26 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the 6'^ respondent^{underRule35of} A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and along with stay petition. Despite hearing arguments, the 2'’'^ respondent did not passed any order in stay petition. Thereafter, the 4*^ respondent addressed^a letter to the 3 rd respondent stating that the possession of the subject^{landwastakenfrom} the petitioner on 27.05.2017 and on the basis of the said letter of the 4*^ respondent, the 3'’'^ respondent informed the 7*^ respondent not to grant renewal stating that the possession of the land was^{resumedbackon} 27.05.2017 as lease period expired. On the basis of^{thesaidclaimofthe} respondents 3 and 4 stating that possession of the subject land was taken

¶58

"S.

¶59

4

¶60

'on 27.05.2017, the 7*^ respondent rejected the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶61

This Court, vide order, dated 02.04.2019, directed the respondents not to give the subject land to any third party on^lease.

¶62

Heard Mr.Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents.

¶63

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, despite the directions of this Court dated 13.08.2018, the 8**^ respondent did not issued dispatch permits. As the petitioner was insisting for issuance of dispatch permits, the 7*^ respondent before whom the application for^{renewalofleasewas} pending, passed^ an order dated 24.10.2018 in Proceedings NO.6237/Q3/2005, rejecting the quarry lease renewal application of the petitioner, on the basis of alleged claim of the respondents 3 and 4, that the possession of subject land was taken on 27.05.2017 as the period of lease of the petitioner expired by 23.05.2017 and that the land^is under the

¶64

5

¶65

/

¶66

control of the Revenue Department and as such, no permission or permit should be issued to the petitioner without intimation to respondents 3 and 4, though the said asserting of respondents 3 and 4 is cor^trary to law and incorrect. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶67

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and submits that the petitioner has a proviso of filing revision ) ) application before the concerned authority. The petitioner without availing the opportunity of filing revision application, has filed the present writ petition. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to pass appropriate orders.

¶68

On considering the submissions of both the learned^counselsand upon perusing the entire material on record, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the

¶69

following directions:

¶70

i. The petitioner is directed to file revision application^beforethe concerned authority, against the proceedings NO.6237/Q3/2005, dated 24.10.2018 within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this’ order.

¶71

6

¶72

wm

¶73

ii. On such filing of revision application, the respondents are directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as^possible. in accordance with law.

¶74