J Srinivasulu 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 NQ: 571 qf 7()9Fi

¶6

Between:

¶7

J Srinivasulu, S/o J. Chinnappa, Aged about 56 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 Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce (Mines-ll) Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Director of Mines and Geology, 5th and 6th Floors Anjaneya

¶12

Towers, IbrahimpatnamVijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor District.

¶14

The Divisional Mines and Geology Officer Madanapalli, Anamayya

¶15

District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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.71/RQL/RM and BS/2023 dated 23.08.2024 of the 3rd Respondent in rejecting my

¶18

application for grant of renewal quarry lease for road, metal, building stones to an extent of 0.920 hectors in Sy.No.1072 of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District as iliegai, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles^of natural justice and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to renew the Petitioner's application dated 19.05.2023 for quarry lease of road, metal and building stones to an extent of 0.860 hectors in Sy.No.1072 of Basinikonda Viiiage, Madanapaiii Mandai, Anamayya District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2n9fi

¶20

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 direct the Respondents No.2 & 3 to permit the Petitioner to operate quarry lease for road, metal and building stones over an extent of 0.920 hectors in Sy.No,1072 of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalli Mandal Anamayya District forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K RAGHU VEER

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

APHC010006142025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

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

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 571 /2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

J Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

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

¶34

1.KRAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶37

may be pleased to issue an order, direction, writ more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings No.71/RQL/RM and BS/2023 dated 23.08.2024 of the 3"^ Respondent in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of renewal quarry lease for road, metal, building stones to an extent of 0.920 hectors in Sy.No.1072^{ofBasinikonda} Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to renew the Petitioner's application dated 19.05.2023 for quarry lease of road, metal and building stones to an extent of 0.920 hectors in Sy. No.1072

¶38

2

¶39

of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Anamayya District and pass such...”

¶40

made an 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner application for grant of quarry lease for road, metal^{andbuildingstoneson} 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^{ofBasinikondavillage,} Madanapalli Mandal and his application has been processed by the respondents and called for ground reports. The 2^^^{respondentissuedan} addendum granting lease from 24.08.2022 to 31.03.2023,^{thereafterneither} his application renewed nor extended, then the petitioner^{filedW.P.No.4022of} 2023 seeking a direction from this Court to extend^{theleaseperiodfornotless} than 5 years in Sy.No. 1072 to an extent of 0.920 hectors at Basinikonda village, Madanapalli Mandal, Annamayya District.

¶41

While the matter stood thus, the 2'"'^ respondent issued notice for payment of seigniorage fee of Rs. 13,63,500/-. Accordingly,^{thesaidamount} has been paid by him. Thereafter the 3'^^ respondent^{issuedashowcause} notice dated 19.10.2023 directing the petitioner to submit explanation as^to why action should not be taken to reject the quarry^{leaseapplicationdueto} public safety. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 25.10.2023. However, the 3'^^ respondent^{issuedtheimpugned} proceedings No.71/RQL/RM&BS/2023, dated 23.08.2024 rejecting his renewal application in one line order on the ground^{thatthereplysubmittedby}

¶42

3

¶43

him is not convincing. Questioning the same, the present^{WritPetitioncameto}

¶44

be filed.

¶45

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.

¶46

On hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has submitted an explanation, dated^25.10.2023 to the show cause notice issued by the 3'’'^ respondent, but without considering the same. the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶47

Per contra, learned 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.

¶48

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, without touching the merits of the case, this Court intends to dispose of the petition while directing the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.10.2023, subject to payment of any due amount, 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.

¶49

4

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There^{shallbenoorderas} to costs.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEdliON^OF^ER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce^(Mines-ll) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velgapudi,^Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶57