This court allowed a public interest writ petition quashing an impugned memo granting lease extension. The extension violated the A.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966, as the State lacks power to exceed the statutory lease period.
The impugned memo granting lease extension for seven months beyond the total period was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.NO.4443 of 2009
02-02-2010
BETWEEN; Kusuma Sathaiah
...Petitioner
vs.
Government of A.P. Industries and Commerce Department rep. by its Secretary and others
...Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.NO.4443 of 2009
ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)
It is stated by Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel for th petitioner that he has received instructions from the petitioner fo withdrawal of the writ petition. This court however declines grant o permission to withdraw this writ petition filed in public interest.
The petitioner assails the order passed by the 1st respondent in th impugned memo dated 03-01-2009 for grant of extension of lease in favou of the 4th respondent to conduct quarrying operations from package No. as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the A.P. Minor Minera
Concession Rules,1966 (for short “the 1966 Rules).
By the impugned memo the 1st respondent, in purported exercise o powers conferred by Rule 9-K (3) of the 1966 Rules accorded permissio to the 4th respondent to operate the sand quarry at package No.6 Bobbarilanka/Peravaram/Rajavaram, Athreyapuram Mandal, Eas Godavari District for a period of seven (7) months from the date of receipt o the order, beyond the total period of two years for which the lease wa initially granted.
This court in the judgment dated 25-01-2010 in W.P.No.7777 of 200 interpreting the provisions of the 1966 Rules, in particular Rule 9(L) an 9(K)-3 has held that no power inheres in the State to grant extension o leases beyond the period stipulated in the Rules.
In the light of the judgment of this Court referred to above, th impugned memo cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
______________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
__________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
2ND FEBRUARY 2010.
TSNR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State has power to grant lease extension beyond statutory period under Rule 9(K)(3) of 1966 Rules.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kusuma Sathaiah
Government of A.P. Industries and Commerce Department
GODA RAGHURAM
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
