Disposed

M/s. Swapna Sand Quarries, Rep by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum

Telangana HC18 Nov 2011WP/30608/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a successful bidder facing interference. It clarified that while use of proclainers for sand excavation is prohibited, machinery for ramp reinforcement and attending to stuck vehicles is permitted if intimated in advance to the competent authority for oversight.

What did the court decide?

Intimation in writing to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology proposed work before deploying machinery for ramp maintenance and vehicle rescue.

M/s. Swapna Sand Quarries, Rep by its… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.30608 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent No.3.

¶5

2. Relief sought for in this Writ Petition by the successful bidder is that though the lease is granted to him as a highest bidder in public auction, respondents are interfering when the petitioner was attempting to repair the ramps, pathways and remove the standard/broken down vehicles from the Reach leased to him.

¶6

3. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, on instructions, submits and confirms that as per auction dated 16.08.2011, the lease in question at Karugorumilli Reach is allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner has paid the requisite amount after confirmation and executed the lease deed. The first respondent has also issued necessary Work Order, dated 21.09.2011. However, to the extent of use of machinery such as praoclainers contrary to Rule 9-X (e) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, by the lessee is alone objected to and not the working at the Reach in due compliance with aforesaid Rule.

¶7

4. It is brought to my notice that this Court considered similar matters in W.P.No.23369 of 2011, dated 26.08.2011, and W.P.No.12442 of 2010, dated 03.06.2011, and as per the orders passed in the said Writ Petitions, this Writ Petition shall also stand disposed of with the following direction:

¶8

In my opinion while the lessees are strictly prohibited

¶9

from using heavy machinery such as proclainers for excavating sand, at the same time, they shall be permitted to use the machinery required for strengthening of the ramps and also to attend to the vehicles which are either stuck or have failed in the course of transportation of sand either in the riverbed or otherwise. In order to ensure that the machinery is not misused for the purpose of excavation of sand, the petitioner shall intimate in writing to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned giving the details of the work which is required to be attended to and the machinery which is proposed to be used. It is only after giving such intimation that the petitioner can deploy the machinery required only for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and attending to the vehicles which have failed or got stuck. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or any other competent authority shall be at liberty to depute any of their subordinates to oversee the proposed work of the lessees. It is made clear that if the lessees use the machinery for the purpose of excavation of sand, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/the competent authority is entitled to take action according to law.

¶10

5. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_______________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J)

¶12

18^th November 2011 RRB

M/s. Swapna Sand Quarries, Rep by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Swapna Sand Quarries, Rep by its Managing Partner, v. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Hussenaiah Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division A.P. Satate

S. Nageswara Rao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Gouthami Explosives Pvt.Ltd., a company registered under Vs The Chief Controller of Explosves, a Blcok, 5th floor

Ramchander Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Palavelli, Vs The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology

P. Ramgopal Rao Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager