Disposed

A.Nagabhushan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd.by Director

Telangana HC3 Nov 2011WP/29450/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Tahsildar to forward the report directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology within thirty days, pursuant to a Government Order governing quarry lease applications, to address a petitioner's grievance regarding procedural delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent-Tahsildar to send the report directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology within thirty days.

A.Nagabhushan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 29450 OF 2011

¶3

Date: November 03, 2011

¶4

Between:
A. Nagabhushan Reddy … Petitioner
And
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad & 3 others. …
Respondents

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 29450 OF 2011

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for R-3 and R-4.

¶10

2. The petitioner has applied for grant of quarry lease under his application dated 17.8.2011 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 181 Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 28.05.1998. An expeditious disposal of such application is regulated by the procedure prescribed under the said G.O. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the report from the Tahsildar, Chowdepalli Mandal, is called for by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the said report is not sent in terms of the G.O. directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology within the time prescribed. The learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner relied upon similar grievance redressed by order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22568 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011 and requests for a similar direction.

¶12

3. In view of the above, the 5^th respondent-Tahsildar is required to act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28-05-1998, referred to above, without further loss of time.

¶13

4. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 5^th respondent-Tahsildar to send the report directly to the 2^nd respondentAssistant Director of Mines and Geology in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 28-05-1998, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶14

________________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶15

Date: November 03, 2011 BSB

A.Nagabhushan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd.by Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nagabhushan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd.by Director

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

Mr.v.Leela Prasad Vs Government of India., rep.by its Secretary

M/s. Padmalaya Telefilms Limited, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (P.D)

Mullapudi Subba Rao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum

Master Mohammed Fayaque Ali, Vs The Union of India

P.D.P.S.v.Abhimanyu Vs Union of India., Ministry of Human Resources Department

A. Kanna Babu Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology