Petitioner challenging grant of time extension to third respondent regarding leased sand mining rights. Court held statutory authority can exercise power under rules and leaseholder cannot restrain it on mere allegations.
Direction to respondents not to grant extension refused; Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.23088 OF 2005
DATED:27.10.2005
Between: Banothu Harichandra Naik
…Petitioner
And The District Level Committee, rep.by its Chairman, Khammam District and others
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.23088 OF 2005
ORDER:
The petitioner was successful bidder in the auction conducted to lease out right to quarry sand in Godavari Sand Reach in Bhadrachalam, in Khammam District. By proceedings dt.29.9.2005 the lease was granted from 1.10.2005 to 30.9.2006 as the petitioner quoted a sum of Rs.17,65,000/-. It appears, when there was deposit of sand in Block No.2 in S.No.16 the first respondent auctioned the sand and third respondent herein became highest bidder quoting Rs.46,000/-. He was required to remove the sand within two months. As he could not remove within two months, he approached the first respondent for extension of time by three months. Apprehending that if such extension is granted to third respondent he might encroach upon the river reach leased out to the petitioner, present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to grant extension to third
respondent.
Even according to the petitioner, the third respondent was given right to remove 1296 cubic meters of sand in block No.2 of S.No.16. If there is any likelihood of third respondent removing sand than what is permitted, it is always open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the appropriate authority. Merely on an allegation that the third respondent removed the sand from the reach leased out to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot prevent the first respondent from exercising its powers under Rule 9-B(2)(b) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioner has no right to restrain statutory authority from exercising its power.
The Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
27.10.2005
bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a leaseholder can restrain a statutory authority from granting an extension of time to another party within permitted rules.
Whether mere allegation of sand removal permits a petitioner to prevent statutory authority from exercising powers under Rule 9-B(2)(b).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Banothu Harichandra Naik
District Level Committee, rep.by its Chairman
Khammam District
Third Respondent
V. V. S. RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
