Disposed

G.Madhusudhana Rao, v. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Telangana HC24 Jun 2011WP/13522/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the illegal inaction of the Tahsildar (3rd Respondent) in not sending a No Objection Certificate report for a quarry lease application. The court directed the respondent to submit the requisite report within six weeks, declaring the delay arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 3rd Respondent to send the report to the 1st Respondent regarding land availability and classification within six weeks.

G.Madhusudhana Rao, Vs Assistant Director of Mines and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

W.P. No. 13522 of 2011

¶3

DATED: 24.06.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

G. Madhusudhana Rao .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Assistant Director of Mines and three others ..Respondents

¶8

O R D E R:-

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶10

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of mandamus to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in not sending “No Objection Certificate” to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for grant of quarry lease to the petitioner for an extent of Ac.1.58 cents of land in R.S. Nos. 115/1A, 115/4 & 115/8 situated in Kunderu Revenue Village of Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for grant of permission for quarrying in the abovementioned land on 16.04.2011. It is stated that on the application of the petitioner the Tahsildar was addressed to send his report / No Objection Certificate with regard to availability, classification and category of the land, etc. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though it is obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to send his report / No Objection directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology as notified in G.O.Ms.No. 181, dated 28.05.1998, such report is not being sent by the Tahsildar.

¶12

I have perused the guidelines notified by the Government in G.O. Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998.

¶13

The aforesaid guidelines are framed fixing time at various stages for disposal of application for grant of quarry lease. As per the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms.No.181, dated 28.05.1998, report has to be sent by the Tahsildar, whenever such authority is addressed by the

¶14

Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. In all cases, the authority need not necessarily issue No Objection Certificate for grant of quarry lease, but only in cases where he has no objection for issuance of such certificate, he had to send his report indicating the reasons for issuance of such No Objection Certificate. But, at the same time, he cannot sit over the matter without sending any such report.

¶15

Inasmuch as it is stated that the application was filed by the petitioner on 16.04.2011 and the 3^rd respondent was addressed to send his No Objection / report, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to send his report to the

¶16

1^st respondent indicating the availability, category and classification of land, etc., for grant of quarry lease in respect of the land in question, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

_____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,

¶19

J 24.06.2011

¶20

bcj

G.Madhusudhana Rao, v. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Madhusudhana Rao, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bramaramba Aided High School, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Thumati Narasimhaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Satyavathi Vs The Director General,Drugs and Copy Rights Drugs

M/s Sri Mahesh Kirana and Jaggery Merchant, Vs The Station House Officer

Sri. Vani English Medium Tutorial Institution, Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

M.Lakshminarayana Vs Assistant Director of Mines and Geology