Disposed

G.Sathi Babu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC13 Nov 2008WP/24760/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that nearly 2.5 years elapsed without action on the petitioner's application for a quarry lease. The Court held that there was no justification for keeping the application pending indefinitely and directed the respondents to consider it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's application for quarry lease and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

G.Sathi Babu Vs The Deputy Director of Mines and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24760 of 2008

¶3

Between:

¶4

G.Sathi Babu s/o.Subba Rao R/o.Balabhadrapuram (V), Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶8

2 The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Gandhipuram-

¶9

3, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶10

3 The Tahsildar, Addateegala, East Godavari District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue appropriate writor order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in not granting quarry lease in respect of the land to an extent of Hec.3.00 in Sy.No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner dt. 23.1.2006 for grant of quarry lease to quarry road metal as wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to grant quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.24760 of 2007

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioner complains that he made application on 23.1.2006 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Gandhipuram-3, Rajahmundy, East Godavari District with a request to grant mining lease, to quarry Road Metal and Building Stones for 3.00 hectors land, in Survey No.207/1 of Gonthuvanipalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. He submits that the Gram Panchayat, Gonthuvanipalem village, gave its consent for the grant of lease, and still, no action has been taken on the application, by the respondents so far.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶20

The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 prescribe the procedure for grant or renewal of lease to quarry minor minerals, such as road metal and building stones . Nearly 2 ½ years have elapsed, ever since petitioner had made application. If the application made by the petitioner is defective, the respondents ought to have returned the same and there is no justification in keeping the application pending, indefinitely.

¶21

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶23

L.NARASIMHA

¶24

13-11-2008 Stp

¶25

..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER

¶26

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}

G.Sathi Babu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sathi Babu v. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Venkataiah Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary

Putta Madhu S/o Late Raja lingam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kaduru Bala Ramaiah Vs Kaduru Bala Ramaiah

Sri Srinivasa Services (Regn. No. 323) Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Shaik Podela Mohammad Khasim, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Yeruka Shiva Kumar Vs The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and