Disposed

N. Mohan Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Dec 2012PIL/160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged the non-recovery of penalty for illegal sand quarrying by the 6th respondent. The court directed no further lease for the mine without leave and granted two weeks for the 1st respondent to pass an order in a pending revision before it.

What did the court decide?

Directed no further lease to be granted for the mine without leave of the Court; adjournment granted post two weeks for the 1st respondent to pass an order in pending revision.

N. Mohan Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

: PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, THE ACTING CHIEF

¶6

JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON`BLE SRI JUSTICE: SANJAY KUMAR P.I.L. No: 160 OF 2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

N. Mohan Kumar, S/o. Subba Rao, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. 8-143/B, Adinarayanapuram, Epurupalem, Prakasam District.

¶11

Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2. Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan, Nr.Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶15

3. Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶16

4. Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, 7-330(13), Sambasiva Nagar, South By-pass Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶17

5. Sri B. Jagannadha Rao. A.D. Mines & Geology, 7-330(13), Sambasiva Nagar, South By-pass Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶18

6. Amanchi Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No. 4-48, Near Ankamma Temple, Nayunipalli (V), Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶19

Respondents

¶20

Whereas the Petitioner above named through his Advocate Sri Kurra Srinivas, presented this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 4 in not recovering the penalty amount of Rs.5,02,48,000/- from the 6^th respondent pursuant to notices against his illegal sand quarrying after an elapse of four years is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, unjust, opposed to Public Administration and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to recover the penalty amount of Rs.5,02,48,000/- from the 6^th respondent pursuant to Demand Notice No. 5096/Sand-Ong/09, dt. 30-09-2009 from the 6th respondent forthwith.

¶21

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition affidavit filed therein, order of the High Court dated. 16-04-2012 & 01-10-2012 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kurra Srinivas, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.5 and Sri T. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent No.6, the Court made the following

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

“The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is not operating the mine in any manner whatsoever and that the lease period is also over and is not extended in their favour. In view of that, we only direct no further lease will be granted in

¶24

respect of the said mine without leave of the Court. On 01.10.2012 this court directed the 1st respondent to pass order in the revision pending before it, within a period of two weeks. But, so far we have not received any order. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that two weeks time should be granted, so that he can take instructions in the matter and shall appraise the Court. In view of the above, post after two weeks.”

¶25

Sd/- B.V. SATYANARAYANA, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶26

// TRUE COPY //

¶27

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Contd. 2. )

. 2 .

1. T h e Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

2. T h e Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan, Nr.Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶33

3. The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶34

4. T h e Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, 7-330(13), Sambasiva Nagar, South By-pass Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶35

5. Sri B. Jagannadha Rao. A.D. Mines & Geology, 7-330(13), Sambasiva Nagar, South By-pass Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶36

6. Amanchi Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No. 4-48, Near Ankamma Temple, Nayunipalli (V), Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶37

7. Two CCs to Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

¶38

8. One CC to Sri. Kurra Srinivas, Advocate (OPUC)

¶39

9. One CC to Sri T. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

¶40

10. Two Spare copies

¶41

Ksv

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

Ksv Date of drafting: 12-12-2012

¶44

HACJ & SKJ

¶45

DATE: 10-12-2012

¶46

NOTE: POST AFTER TWO WEEKS

¶47

ORDER

¶48

PIL.NO. 160 OF 2012

¶49

DIRECTION

N. Mohan Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Mohan Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Mahmood Ali Vs A.P. State Wakf Board through its C.E.O.

A. Sundara Rami Reddy, Vs The District Collector

S.a.Karimullah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Dayakar, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mallisetty Vasantha Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The Commissioner

Ch. Swamy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh