The petitioner sought mandamus for extension of sand lease or refund of dues. The Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioners representation within three months.
Direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation dated 3.5.2006 within three months from receipt of the order.
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 P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.11897 of2006
DATED 16.06.2006
Between: Manchala Ramanaiah .. PETITIONER
Versus
The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions, Zilla Parishad Compound, Nellore District, Nellore, represented By its Chairman and two others. .. RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.11897 of2006
ORDER:
Heard the counsel on record.
The Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of Mudivartipalem village Sand Reach granted to him pursuant to the Tender Notice No.650/2003-A3, dated 16.6.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent by a period of 4-1/2 months (approx) or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and also reimburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the formation of ramp and laying of roads as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith extend the lease by a period of 4-1/2 months (approx) or in the alternative refund the lease amount for the said period and also reimburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the formation of ramp and laying of roads and for pass such other suitable orders.
3. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation dated 3.5.2006 to the 1st respondent, but, despite repeated requests, he is not disposing of the said representation. No doubt several factual details had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction:
“The 1st respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation dated 3.5.2006 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.06.2006
SSR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners prayer for extension of sand lease and refund of amount deserves to be allowed by issuance of writ of mandamus.
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner regarding inaction of the respondents requires disposal pursuant to this petition.
Manchala Ramanaiah
The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions
P.S.Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
