Disposed

M/s. Vallurama Industries, rep. by its Proprietor v. The Government of a.P., rep. by Secretary

Telangana HC22 Mar 2010WP/3269/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed for delay in furnishing a report on availability of land for mining lease, the court held that the issue of land availability cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The petition was disposed of directing the respondent to submit the report within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to submit report on petitioner's application within three weeks from receipt of the order.

M/s. Vallurama Industries, rep. by its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.3269 OF 2010

¶3

Dated 2 2 nd March, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s Vallurama Industries …Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh And three others …Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Smt N.Shoba Counsel for the respondents: GP for Mines and Geology

¶9

The Court made the following

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

In this writ petition, the grievance, in short, of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not been furnishing his report with reference to the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease over an extent of 15.000 hectares in Survey No.94 and 58 of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner made its application for mining lease on 10.08.2009 to respondent No.3. On the same day, respondent No.3 forwarded the same to respondent No.4 in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.181 and 74 dated 28.05.1998 and 16.02.2002 respectively for furnishing a report on the availability of the area for granting of mining lease.

¶12

In page No.2 of his counter-affidavit, respondent No.4 stated as under:

¶13

“As regards extent applied for in other S.No.94 in Budawada Village, it is submitted that this S.No. measuring an extent of Acs.47.45 is classified as A.W dry in village accounts. But the particular extent applied for issue of NOC in this S.No. is already assigned to LLPs. Hence there is no vacant land available for issue of NOC.”

¶14

A similar plea was raised in paragraph 3. Smt N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the pleading of respondent No.4 in another para to the effect that the area has not been peg marked suggests that the land is available and that respondent No.4 has thus taken a conflicting stand on the availability of the area.

¶15

In my opinion, the issue as to the availability of the land applied

¶16

for by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. Respondent No.4 is yet to submit his report. Whether the land is available or not, it is incumbent upon respondent No.4 to submit his report. It is only after the report is submitted by him and the competent authority passes an order, that the occasion may arise to adjudicate on the issues, if any, raised by the aggrieved party. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4 to submit his report on the petitioner’s application forwarded by respondent No.3, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such report, respondent No.3 shall forward the same to the competent authority for a final decision on the petitioner’s application.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.4301 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

Dated 22^nd March, 2010 vrn

M/s. Vallurama Industries, rep. by its Proprietor v. The Government of a.P., rep. by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vallurama Industries, rep. by its Proprietor v. The Government of a.P., rep. by Secretary

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

K.M.S.V. Rama Leela Vs State Bank of India

S.Rahul Reddy Vs Government of India

Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, Vs The Circle Inspector of Police

Alikhan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Sri T.K. Kodandaram, Vs The Superintending Engineer

M/s. Suvarna Stone Crushers, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh