M/s. Vaddikula Seva Sangham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vaddikula Seva Sangham, Kuppam represented by its Treasurer C. Mani s/o late Chinnaswamy Hindu, aged 58 years, business, R/o D.No. 3/145 NTR Colony, D.K.Palli Village and Panchayat D.K.Palli Post, Kuppam Mandalam, Chittoor District, State of^AP. ...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (Mines-ll) Department rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi village Amaravathy mandal Guntur district

¶12

The Director of Mines and Geology, D.No.7-104, B-block,^5thand6th floors, Sri Anjaneya towers, Ibrahimpatnam town. Near Vijayawada city NTR District AP 521456

¶13

The Dy. Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa town and^district 4. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Gangavaram Village, Palamaner, Chittoor Dist.

¶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 any writ or direction or order, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of the impugned

¶16

order/proceedings of the 1st respondent/the Govt of AP Industries ' Commerce (Mines.I) Department vide Memo No.3836/M. 1(1 )/2019 dt. 123-2024, confirming the earlier order passed by the Respondent no.1 vide Government Memo No. 3836/M. 1(1)/2019-3 dt. 18- 2-2020 issued by the Ind.Com.(Mines-l) and dismissing the revision application of the writ petitioner herein by the respondent no.1 and determination of the lease of the quarry of writ petitioner and forfeiting the caution deposits of the writ petitioner by respondent No.1 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the APMMC Rules 1966 and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings and thereafter direct the respondent no.1 to restore the lease of the quarry to the writ petitioner fothwith and cancel the determination order passed by he R1 against the writ petitioner and further permit the writ petitioner to do quarrying/excavation works in the subject land in 1.000 Meet in Sy.No. 152/1 of Yanadhipalle (V), Kuppam (M), Chittoor Dist.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 suspend the impugned proceedings of the Respondent no.1, the state of AP Industries Commerce (Mines.I) Department^issued vide Memo No. 3836/M.I(1)/2019 dt. 12-3-2024, and further direct the authorities not to lease out the subject quarry to any body or any 3rd party contrary to the interest claims of the writ petitioner in the land in 1,000 Meet in Sy No. 152/1 of Yanadhipalle (V), Kuppam (M),^{ChittoorDist.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S S BHATT

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

¶21

The Court made the following order:

7

.APHC010099642025

0^0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3458]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 5366/2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

M/s. Vaddikula Seva Sangham,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.S S BHATT

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Heard Sri S. S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner^andSmt. Sudeepthi Potiuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries Commerce for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶45

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision^{Petitionfiled} by them against the proceedings, dated 30.07.2018 has not been

¶46

considered in proper prospective in as much as none of the grounds of the' Revision raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the A1 St respondent.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically^refers to the ground Nos.6 & 7 in the Revision Petition. He also relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4214 of 2021 in the case of S. Koteswara Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh contends that since the petitioner did not operate the license on account of the proceedings of the 4‘^ respondent, dated 03.03.2016, the question of payment of dead rent would not arise. however, the said contention was not adverted to by the Revision authorities. 4. Having regard to the same, the impugned order of the 1®*^ respondent is set aside and the 1®‘ respondent is directed to consider the Revision application filed by the petitioner afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the Revision Authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner is at liberty to place a copy of the Revision petition along with all the documents, in support of his contention before the Revision authority along with the copy of^thisorder.

¶48

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

¶49

3

¶50

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT GISTRAR Section OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce^(Mines-ll) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building,^Velagapudi village Amaravathy mandal Guntur district

¶56

The Director of Mines and Geology, D.No.7-104, B-block,^5thand6th floors, Sri Anjaneya towers, Ibrahimpatnam town. Near^{Vijayawadacity,} NTR District AP 521456

¶57