The High Court quashed an order extending a sand quarrying lease in violation of Rule 9-L of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, ruling that Rule 9-K(3) does not authorize such extensions.
The writ petition was allowed and the order of the 1st respondent dated 27.02.2009 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.6313 of 2009
09-02-2010
BETWEEN; Addepalli Prathap Raju
...Petitioner
vs.
State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department and others
...Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.No.6313 of 2009
ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)
This writ petition is filed in public interest challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent-State dated 27-02-2009 extending the lease in favour of the 8th respondent for quarrying sand in respect of Reach No.1, at Madanagopalapuram Sand Reach, Rajampeta, Kadapa District till 09-032010. The challenge is on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of the Rule.9-L of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 ( for short “the 1966 Rules”).
By the order impugned, the 1st respondent acceded to the request of
the 8th respondent to treat the first year lease period as being from 10-032008 to 09-03-2009, as the second year lease period from 10-03-2009 to 0903-2010 though as per the statutory Rules referred to above the first year lease period having commenced from the date of execution and expired by the end of the financial year, the second year lease period would similarly commence and end by 31.03.2010. The 1st respondent in purported exercise of its powers under Rule 9-K(3) of the 1966 Rules granted the impugned extension.
This Court by the judgment dated 25-01-2010 in W.P.No.7777 of 2009 and batch declared that the power under Rule 9-K(3) of the 1966 Rules of the State does not extend to granting extensions of lease in view of and contrary to the provision of Rule 9-L of the Rules.
Following the judgment and in view thereof, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order of the 1st respondent dated 27.02.2009 is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned counsel for the 8th respondent. No order as to costs.
______________
GODA RAGHURAM,J
__________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
9th FEBRUARY 2010.
TSNR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order extending a quarrying lease violated Rule 9-L of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
Whether Rule 9-K(3) of the 1966 Rules allows extensions of lease contrary to Rule 9-L.
Whether the challenge to the 27-02-2009 order should be allowed following the judgment in W.P.No.7777 of 2009.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.7777 of 2009Distinguished¶19
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Addepalli Prathap Raju
State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, 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
