Disposed

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC22 Dec 2010WP/32327/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order in four writ petitions where the High Court placed reliance on a previous order allowing lessees to use heavy machinery for ramp maintenance and vehicle rescue, directing the petitioners to follow those reasons and directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and accompanying miscellaneous petitions disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.06.2010 in W.P.Nos. 12442 and 12475 of 2010.

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.32324, 32327, 32332 and 32335 of 2010

¶3

Date: 22.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. S.V.C. & Co., Nellore and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Nellore and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad

¶11

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology

¶12

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3:--

¶13

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶14

In all these writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being permitted to use heavy machinery for the purposes such as towing the failed vehicles, strengthening of ramps and repair of roads damaged due to heavy rains.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.12442 and 12475 of 2010, wherein it is inter

¶16

alia held as under:

¶17

“In my opinion while the lessees are strictly prohibited from using heavy machinery such as proclainers for excavating sand, at the same time, they shall be permitted to use the machinery required for strengthening of the ramps and also to attend to the vehicles which are either stuck or have failed in the course of transportation of sand either in the riverbed or otherwise. In order to ensure that the machinery is not misused for the purpose of excavation of sand, the petitioners shall intimate in writing to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned giving the details of the work which is required to be attended to and the machinery which is proposed to be used. It is only after giving such intimation that the petitioners can deploy the machinery required only for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and attending to the vehicles which have failed or got stuck. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or any other competent authority shall be at liberty to depute any of their subordinates to oversee the proposed work of the lessees. It is made clear that if the lessees use the machinery for the purpose of excavation of sand, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/the competent authority is entitled to take action according to law.”

¶18

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has fairly submitted that the above noted order squarely covers these writ petitions as well.

¶19

In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.06.2010 in W.P.Nos.12442 and 12475 of 2010 with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of these writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.41063, 41066, 41071, 41085 of 2010 in W.P.Nos.32324, 32327, 32332 and 32335 of 2010 respectively filed for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

22^nd December, 2010 GHN

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Agarwal (Hindu) Vs The Assistant Engineer (Operations)

Smt. Matta Veera Veni Vs TheGovt. of a.P., rep. by its Secretary

Mithula T Vs The Asistant Director of Mines and Geology., D.No.4-49-18

M.Ram Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Darshan Vs The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

M/s.Transworld Garnet India Private Limited Vs The Director of Mines and Geology,Department of Mines