Dismissed

M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, v. Union of India

Telangana HC7 Jun 2013WA/582/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delay as the time limit was fixed by the Court itself, rendering the revision premature. Consequently, the order allowing the revision on merits was also without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications disposed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.582 of 2013

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M/s. Kondanda Rama Minerals, Kadapa District.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

Union of India, Rep. by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and four others.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. PONNAM ASHOK GOUND

¶13

(ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL) GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY MR. ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶16

Fifth respondent in WP.No.27956 of 2011 is the appellant herein. By the order impugned, passed by the learned single Judge, dated 14.03.2013, the writ petition was allowed. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶17

2. Facts, which are not in dispute, are that the fifth respondent herein (writ petitioner) applied for mining lease of an area of Ac.500.00 cents in Sy.No.172 of Pagadalapalli village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. The appellant herein claims that he had earlier filed an application for grant of mining lease over an extent of 164.372 hectares in Sy.Nos.172/2 & 3 and Sy.Nos.176/3 & 4 of the same village on 12.08.2005. It was alleged that the land was surveyed by the Assistant Director of Mines and forwarded the application of the appellant to the Director of Mines for consideration. The appellant asserted that his application is prior in point of time to that of the fifth respondent. However, the mining lease was granted to the fifth respondent herein vide G.O.Ms.No.73 Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department dated 13.03.2006. The appellant had questioned the said order in WP.No.14472 of 2006 before this Court challenging the aforesaid GO granting mining lease in favour of the fifth respondent herein. The said writ petition was, however, not entertained by this Court and by order dated 05.08.2010,

¶18

the appellant was directed to avail the remedy of revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules by approaching the Central Government. In order to enable the appellant to file the revision, notwithstanding the objection as to limitation, this Court granted two months time to the appellant to prefer, as aforesaid. Thereafter, the appellant herein preferred the revision but with a delay of 210 days in filing the revision. The application for condonation of delay was contested by the fifth respondent herein, but by order dated 17.08.2011 the Central Government condoned the delay. Later, by further order dated 27.09.2011, while deciding the revision, on merits, the revisional authority set aside G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 13.03.2006 and remitted the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration. Both the said orders were questioned by the fifth respondent/writ petitioner in the writ petition impugned herein.

¶19

3. Substantial ground on which the fifth respondent herein challenged the said orders of revisional authority was that the revision petition filed by the

¶20

appellant with a delay of 210 days could not have been entertained by the revisional authority inasmuch as the period within which the revision could have been filed was fixed by this Court in WP.No.14472 of 2006 and the said time fixed can only be extended by this Court. The appellant contended before the learned single Judge that the revisional authority was competent to condone the delay in presentation of revision, particularly, when the appellant had made out sufficient cause.

¶21

4. Learned single Judge, on merits, found that this Court having fixed two months time to file the revision, any presentation of the revision beyond the time so fixed cannot be treated as an effective presentation of the revision and in the absence of any extension sought for from this Court, the appellant could not have sought condonation of delay through the revisional authority. Learned single Judge also found that though the revisional authority had power to condone the delay, by virtue of the orders of this Court in the writ petition, referred to above, the time for filing revision was specifically stipulated by this Court and the revisional authority could not have entertained the revision as well as the application for condonation of delay when the presentation of revision was contrary to the orders of this Court. Learned single Judge also made observations on merits of the order of the revisional authority disapproving the reasoning therein.

¶22

5. In this appeal, Mr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the reasons, which compelled the appellant to seek condonation of delay and the said reasons having been found to constitute sufficient cause, the revisional authority had condoned the delay and since the revision was argued on merits as well, by both sides, by a separate order, the revision was allowed on merits also. In view of disposal of revision, on merits, the order condoning delay could not have been challenged by the fifth respondent herein.

¶23

6. We find no substance in either of the grounds. Firstly, at the instance of the appellant himself, this Court in WP.No.14472 of 2006 permitted him to

¶24

file revision and for that purpose granted two months time by specifically recording that ‘If the revision petition is filed within the above stipulated time, the revisional authority shall entertain and adjudicate the same on merits without raising an objection on the aspect of limitation’. If for any reason, the appellant was unable to file the revision within the said time fixed by this Court and was in need of extension of time, the only remedy available to the appellant was to approach this Court and seek requisite extension. Having not availed the said remedy, it was not open for the appellant to approach the revisional authority directly and seek condonation of delay over and above the time fixed by this Court. Obviously, the revisional authority had no power or jurisdiction to extend the time fixed by this Court and in that view of the matter, we find that the learned single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the order condoning the delay passed by the revisional authority is without jurisdiction and consequently,

¶25

the order, on merits, allowing the revision petition is automatically rendered without jurisdiction, as there was no proper presentation of the revision itself.

¶26

7. The second contention of the learned counsel is also liable to be rejected even by a mere look at the prayer in the writ petition impugned herein. It would be evident that the fifth respondent had questioned the order condoning the delay dated 17.08.2011 as well as the order, on merits, allowing the revision dated 27.09.2011.

¶27

Even otherwise, as held by the learned single Judge, on the principles of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when a final order is questioned, all interlocutory orders preceding the final order can also be questioned in the appeal against the final order. Viewed from any angle, therefore, we find no substance in the appeal.

¶28

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

______________ N. V. RAMANA, J

¶30

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶31

June 7^th , 2013 DSK

M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, v. Union of India

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

Sunkavalli Srihari Narayana Swamy S/o Late Venkateswara Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Idamakanti Peddareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bapuram.Gurunath Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bapuram.Gurunath Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Annapurna, Vs The District Collector-cum-District Coordinator