Disposed

M/s. Sri Laxmi Constructions, rep. by its v. Vaseem Akram

Telangana HC9 Jun 2009WA/1821/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, third parties holding mining leases, filed a writ appeal in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging an order disposing of a third party's lease. The court granted liberty to appellants to get impleaded in the pending appellate proceedings regarding their leases and disposed of the writ appeal subject to that provision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellants to get impleaded in appeal before Director of Mines & Geology within three weeks.

M/s. Sri Laxmi Constructions, rep. by its Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶5

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1821 of 2008

¶8

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/09/2008 in WP NO : 21983 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 M/s. Sri Laxmi Constructions, rep. by its Chandrasekhar, H.No.16-2-836/3, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Kanakadurga Stone Crushers, Plot No.4, Road No.3, Raghavendra Colony, Karmanghat

¶11

'X' Roads, Hyderabad, rep. by its Partner: M. Thimmaiah.

¶12

APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Vaseem Akram S/o. Khaja Moinuddin, H.No. 1-7-671, Azampura, Hyderabad - 24. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (Mines Department), rep. by Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Mines & Geology, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Regional Office, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI R.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶21

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1821 of 2008

¶22

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶23

The present writ appeal is filed by the third parties with the leave of the Court, against the order, dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21983 of 2008.

¶24

The appellants herein are the third parties to the writ petition. The 1^st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. Respondents 2 to 4 are the respondents in the above writ petition. The 1^st respondent-petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the memo issued by the Government of A.P., Industries & Commerce, (Mines Department), represented by the Secretary to Government of A.P., Hyderabad (1^st respondent in writ petition), dated 25.8.2008, whereby the 1^st respondent refused to interfere with the orders of respondents 2 and 3, wherein the lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner was terminated.

¶25

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner had the mining lease up to 21.6.2011, by virtue of a renewal granted in the year 1996, to quarry Building Stone and Road Metal, over the land in Sy.No.137 of Pasumamula village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and on a report submitted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that the petitioner did not submit the returns and accounts, in the prescribed format, under Rule 28(3) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and that he did not pay Mineral Revenue dues of Rs.1,32,132/- and

¶26

advance rent of Rs.60,729/-, the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 3.9.1998 and subsequently, he passed an order, dated 26.11.1999 terminating the lease on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the notice. Then, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the 2^nd respondent contending that due to ill health and financial problems, he could not pay the dues and submit the returns in time. The petitioner also expressed his willingness to pay the arrears. But the 2^nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the 1^st respondent. The revision was kept pending for eight years and thereafter, it was dismissed.

¶27

The learned single Judge having observed that the 2^nd respondent did not examine the matter objectively, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order, dated 8.4.2000 passed by the 2^nd respondent and the one dated 25.8.2008 passed by the 1^st respondent. It is observed that since the cancellation of the lease in favour of the writ petitioner was on the ground of default in payment of mineral revenue dues and submission of returns, the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the appeal, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and shall consider the feasibility of permitting the writ petitioner to rectify the lapses, if necessary, by imposing the conditions.

¶28

Having aggrieved by the same, the appellants, who are third parties to the writ petition, filed the above appeal contending that the 3^rd respondent-Director of Mines & Geology, granted lease for 10 years in respect of an extent of Ac.1.35 hectares in Sy.No.137 of Pasumamula village in favour of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Constructions and for 15 years in respect of an extent of Ac.1.65 hectares in

¶29

Sy.No.137/1 of Pasumamula village in favour of M/s. Kanaka Durga Metal Industries and both the appellants are running the stone crushing units and paying regular cess, seniorage and tax to various departments and the lease granted by the authorities is valid till 2010 and 2012 respectively and while so, the 3^rd respondent herein communicated an urgent notice on 11.12.2008 directing the appellants to appear before him for hearing the appeal filed by the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner and then, the appellants came to know about the above writ petition.

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶31

The main contention of the appellants is that the land in question was leased to them and if the same is affected in the appeal before the 3^rd respondent, they would be subjected to loss and grave hardship.

¶32

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission of the appellants that if the lease granted in their favour is affected, they will be subjected to loss and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 3^rd respondent, we feel that it would suffice if a liberty is granted to the appellants to get impleaded in the appeal pending before the appellate authority-3^rd respondent herein, within a period of three weeks from today. On the application being filed, the appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

¶33

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶35

____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date: 9^th June, 2009 Note: Issue CC in one week. (BO) Gurc/nn.

¶36

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶37

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1821 of 2008

¶38

(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari)