Dismissed

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract v. The STate of Ap. rep.by its Secretary (Mines)

Telangana HC11 Mar 2010WP/4696/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenging the respondents entertaining third-party mining lease applications without prior notification under Rules 59 and 60. After disclosure of a 1992 notification covering the area, the court found the challenge baseless but directed a fresh consideration of applications in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider applications from third parties and the petitioner for grant of mining lease in accordance with law.

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.4696 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract (General) Co-operative Society, reptd., by its President Sri K.Konda Reddy.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The State of A.P., reptd., by its Secretary (Mines), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pannala Srinivas. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Mines and Geology.

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:-

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in entertaining and processing the applications of third parties, without following the mandatory provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short “the Rules”), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

I have heard Sri Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, representing the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner was granted mining lease for extracting the mineral ‘slate’. The mining lease expired in the year 1987. The petitioner has not applied for renewal of the lease. The respondents have received applications from three persons for grant of lease in respect of the said mineral. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have not notified the area in question for grant of fresh lease as required under Rules 59 and 60 of the Rules, and, therefore, entertainment of three applications by the respondents even before issue of such notification is illegal.

¶18

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.419, Industries and Commerce (DM.II) Department, dated 18-12-1992, issued under Rule 59(1)(a) of the Rules, whereby the area previously held

¶19

by the petitioner under lease was notified. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, having perused the said notification, fairly conceded to this fact. In view of the same, the premise on which the Writ Petition is filed is proved incorrect. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner except directing the respondents to consider the applications received by them from the third parties along with the application, if any, received from the petitioner, for grant of mining lease in accordance with law.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

-----------------------------------C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:11-3-2010 MNR

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract v. The STate of Ap. rep.by its Secretary (Mines)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goguladinna Slate Quarry Workers Labour Contract v. The STate of Ap. rep.by its Secretary (Mines)

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

P. Vijayanand Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Thatha Ramachandra Rao Vs Puvvada Sanjeeva Rao

V. Anusha, Vs The Regional Pass Port Officer

E.Satyanarayana Vs The Prohibition and Excise Commissioner, Hyderabad

M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Bandumilli Road, Vs The Superintending Engineer Operation

Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Rytu Sangham, Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary