Disposed

Chodapaneedi Bhaskar Rao, v. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Telangana HC26 Feb 2010WP/10918/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the liability for costs in two related writ petitions (W.P.Nos. 10320 & 10918 of 2009) concerning the quashing of an auction notification for sand quarrying. The court clarified that the 3rd respondent is jointly liable for the portion of costs payable to the petitioners in both petitions and must also pay a sum to the Legal Service Authority.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.02.2010 was modified to clarify that the 3rd respondent shall pay Rs. 1,500/- to all writ petitioners jointly and Rs. 1,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority.

Chodapaneedi Bhaskar Rao, Vs The District Level… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

Note: ‘On being mentioned’ Order dated 26-02-2010 is under the Main Order.

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶3

AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.10320 & 10918 of 2009

¶6

10-02-2010

¶7

BETWEEN;

¶8

Sidamsetti Abbai son of Bapaiah

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

The Government of A.P. Department of Industries and Commerce, rep. by its Secretary and others

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶14

AND

¶15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

W.P.Nos.10320 & 10918 of 2009

¶17

ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J)

¶18

These writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law

¶19

and are thus considered and disposed of by this common order.

¶20

The facts in W.P.No.10320 of 2009 are illustrative of the relevant facts pertaining to both the writ petitions and are referred to herein. Facts in W.P.No.10320 of 2009:

¶21

The petitioner a resident of Kothapet Village and Mandal, East Godavari District impeaches the conduct of the State in proposing to conduct a public auction on 26-05-2009 for grant of leasehold rights for

¶22

quarry of sand in Reach No.26, Package No.7 of Gouthami Left Flood Bank at Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli of East Godavari District pursuant to an auction notification dated 08-05-2009 issued by the 3^rd respondent, on the ground that the auction process has been initiated without obtaining a ground water feasibility report from the Director, Ground Water Department or a permission from the 4^th respondent under the River Conservancy Act, in transgression of the provisions of the Rule 9-B(6) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 (for short “the 1966 Rules) and the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶23

The impugned notification dated 08-05-2009 published on behalf of the 3^rd respondent at Serial No.12 enumerates Reach No.26 pertaining to Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli sand reaches constituting package No.7. The petitioner asserting to be a small farmer in pursuit of cultivation of dry land in Mandaplli village, asserts to be dependant on the water from the adjacent Godavari river occasionally and to be substantially dependant on bore wells and ground water for agriculture and drinking water. Acute water shortage in the village is pleaded. In para.4 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that the petitioner’s enquiries reveal that the 3^rd respondent had not obtained permission as required under Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules nor has permission been obtained from the 4^th respondent under the River Conservancy Act.

¶24

The writ petition initially came up for admission on 25.05.2009 and on 02-06-2009 the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology waived notices for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development waived notice for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The matter was adjourned to 23-06-2009 for filing a counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavits have however been filed.

¶25

In view of the learned Government Pleaders for Mines and Geology and Irrigation & Command Area Development waiving notices for the concerned respondents on 02-06-2009 and the time for filing a counter-affidavit, under the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 having expired, it would be legitimate to conclude that on the basis of the nontraverse, the allegations in the writ petition reflect the factual situation. In W.P.No.9753 of 2009, by the judgment dated 10.08.2009, this Court had spelt out the principle that in the absence of a ground water report by the Director of the Ground Water Department, no notification could be issued for conduct of auctions for grant of leases for quarrying of sand, in view of the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules. As the notification transgresses the principle spelt out in the judgment in W.P.No.9753 of 2009 and the notification violates the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) as well, the notification impugned is quashed to the extent package No.7 relating to Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli sand reaches is notified for auction. The notification shall pro tanto stand quashed.

¶26

As the respondents have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit, we consider it appropriate to allow these writ petitions with costs of Rs.2,500/- of which Rs.1500/- shall be paid by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner and Rs.1000/- to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶27

______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶28

__________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶29

10^th FEBRUARY 2010.

¶30

Note: A copy of this order be marked to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Service Authority for information. (B/O)

¶31

TSNR

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶35

W.P. 10320 and 10918 of 2009

¶36

Dated. 26–02-2010

¶37

ON BEING MENTIONED:

¶38

ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR, J)

¶39

We have directed posting of these writ petitions ‘for being mentioned’ as in the last paragraph of the ‘oral common order dated 10^th February, 2010 in the writ petitions’, there is an ambiguity as to whether the costs imposed should be paid in each writ petition by the 3^rd respondent or for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions.

¶40

Having considered the matter and having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we correct the last paragraph of the ‘oral common order dated 10^th February, 2010 as under and the said paragraph shall be substituted as under:

¶41

‘As the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit, we consider it appropriate to allow these writ petitions with costs of Rs.2,500-00 of which Rs.1500-00 shall be paid to all the writ petitioners by the 3^rd respondent who shall also pay Rs.1,000-00 to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.’

¶42

The oral common order dated 10-02-2010 in the above writ petitions is modified as above.

pvks

26-02-

2010

Nb:- Registry to issue the modified order.

¶47

b/o pvks

Chodapaneedi Bhaskar Rao, v. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chodapaneedi Bhaskar Rao, v. The District Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Surya Chakara Sea Foods Ltd., Vs Agricultural Market Committee

Palla Eswaraiah Vs The Municipal Commissioner

M/s. Kranthi Constructions, a registered PArtnership firm Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretary

Sri K. Srinivasulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Siddamsetti Abbai Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Narayana Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal