J Meena Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 556 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

J Meena, W/o. J.Srinivasulu, Aged about 48 years, Occ^{Business,R/o.} D.No. 7/82, Eguvakuravanka, Mysorebank Colony, Madanapalle, Annamayya District-517 325, A.P.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its^{PrincipalSecretary,} Industries and Commerce (Mines-ll) Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Director of Mines and Geology, 5th and 6th Floors^Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶12

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor^District.

¶13

The Divisional Mines and Geology Officer Madanapalli,^Anamayya District.

¶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 an order, direction, writ more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings NO.70/RQL/RM and

¶16

BS/2023 dated 23.08.2024 of the 3 Respondent in rejecting^{myapplication} lease for road, metal, building stones to an for grant of renewal quarry extent of 0.860 hectors in Sy.No.1072 of Basinikonda^{Village,Madanapalli} Mandal, Anamayya District as illegal, improper, unjust,^{arbitrary,contrary} to law and violative of principles of natural justice and set^asidethesame and further direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to renew the Petitioners lease of road, metal and building application dated 19.05.2023 for quarry stones to an extent of 0.860 hectors in Sy.No.1072^{ofBasinikondaVillage} Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 & 3 to permit the Petitioner to for road, metal and building stones over an extent^of operate quarry lease 0.860 hectors in Sy.No.1072 of Basinikonda Village,^{MadanapalliMandal} Anamayya District forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K RAGHU VEER

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR MINES^ANDGEOLOGY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC01000615202S

¶23

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

¶24

[3310]

¶25

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 556/2025

Between;

...PETITIONER

J Meena

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶34

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.K RAGHU VEER

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶39

The Court made the following;

¶40

ORDER

¶41

This Writ Petition is fiied under Articie 226 of the^{Constitutionofindiafor}

¶42

the following relief;-

¶43

may be pleased to issue an order, direction, writ more^particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings No.70/RQL/RM Respondent in rejecting the and BS/2023 dated 23.08.2024 of the 3' lease for road, metal. petitioner's application for grant of renewal quarry . Gilding stones to an extent of 0.860 hectors in Sy.No.l072 of Basinikonda Viilage Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District as illegal,^{improper,unjust} arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles^{ofnaturaljusticeand} set aside the same and further direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to dated 19.05.2023 for quarry lease of renew the Petitioner's application

¶44

2

¶45

extent of 0.860 hectors in Sy. No.1072 road, metal and building stones to an of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District and pass such...

¶46

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner made an lease for road, metal and building stones on application for grant of quarry 12.10.2009. The 2""' respondent granted lease for a^{periodof10yearsfrom} 12.10.2009 to 11.10.2019. The petitioner filed an application^on02.07.2019 for grant of renewal of quarry lease in Sy.No.1072 of Basinikonda village, Madanapalli Mandal and her application has been processed by the called for ground reports. The 2"^^ respondent issued an respondents and from 24.08.2022 to 31.03.2023, thereafter neither addendum granting lease extended, then the petitioner filed W.P.No.4022 her application renewed nor direction from this Court to extend the lease period^fornot of 2023 seeking a extent of 0.860 hectors at Basinikonda less than 5 years in Sy.No.1072 to an village, Madanapalli Mandal, Annamayya District.

¶47

While the matter stood thus, the 2"“ respondent issued notice for fee of Rs.12,25,300/-. Accordingly, the said amount payment of seigniorage 31.03.2022 through CFMS transaction. Thereafter has been paid by her on notice dated 19.10.2023 directing the the 3^^ respondent issued a show cause petitioner to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken to reject the quarry lease application due to public safety.^{Subsequently,thepetitioner} 25.10.2023. However, the 3"'^ has submitted her detailed explanation on respondent issued the impugned proceedings NO.70/RQL/RM&BS/2023

¶48

3

¶49

dated 23.08.2024 rejecting her renewal application in one line order on the ground that the reply submitted by her is not convincing.^Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶50

Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel,^representing Sri K.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing^for the respondents.

¶51

On hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner^{submitsthatthough} ; the petitioner has submitted an explanation, dated^25.10.2023 to the show 1 cause notice issued by the 3'^'^ respondent, but without^{consideringthesame,} the respondents have rejected the application of the^{petitioner,whichisillegal} and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner^{requeststhisCourt} to pass appropriate orders.

¶52

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of^anyrelief in this Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same.

¶53

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for^{thepetitionerand} the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, without touching the merits of the case, this Court intends^{todisposeofthepetition} while directing the respondents to consider the explanation^{submittedbythe} petitioner dated 25.10.2023, subject to payment of^{anydueamount,andpass}

¶54

4

¶55

4^

¶56

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.

¶57