Remanded

K.Uma Devi, v. The Governfment of Andhra Praesh

Telangana HC26 Jun 2013WP/19473/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging a revision order rejecting a quarry lease were allowed because records were unavailable to prove service of hearing notice or a hearing was conducted. The order was set aside and remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside quarry lease were set aside; matter remanded to 1st respondent for fresh hearing on 29.07.2013.

K.Uma Devi, Vs The Governfment of Andhra Praesh — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.18721, 18722, 18723, 19428, 19454, 19473, 19772, 19816, 19841 and 19858 of 2009

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

As a common issue arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by 1^st respondent in exercise of revisional powers under Rule 35(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner and confirming the orders passed by 2^nd respondent on 22.11.2007. The 2^nd respondent had set aside the order of the 3^rd respondent dt.13.06.2007 granting a Quarry lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in Belum Singavaram Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Kurnool District for a period of 10 years under Rule 12(1) of the above rules.

¶6

3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the notice of hearing of the revision petition on 20.07.2009 was not served either on the revision petitioner or on her counsel; and therefore, they had not attended the hearing and made any submissions before the revisional authority; and that revisional authority had rejected the revision by an ex parte order.

¶7

4. The impugned orders of revision however indicate that a personal hearing was conducted on 20.07.2009, the representative of the petitioner attended the hearing and submitted arguments, that after hearing the arguments of the revision petitioner and after going through the record, the impugned orders were passed. When the matter had come up before this Court, this Court requested the learned Government Pleader to produce the record of hearing of the case, to

¶8

find out whether notices of hearing of the revision were served on the petitioner or not. The learned Government Pleader however submitted that the records of the hearing are not available at present. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that she or her counsel were not informed about the hearing on 20.07.2009 stands unrebutted.

¶9

5. In the facts and circumstances, since the orders were passed by the revisional authority allegedly without hearing to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions and set aside the orders passed in revision by 1^st respondent impugned in these writ petitions and remit the revisions back to

¶10

1^st respondent to hear the petitioner on 29.07.2013 at 12:30pm and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶11

6. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of above. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications filed in these Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of.

¶12

________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶13

26^th June 2013

¶14

scs

K.Uma Devi, v. The Governfment of Andhra Praesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Uma Devi, v. The Governfment of Andhra Praesh

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

N.Venkata Ramana, Vs The Ed. CET-2011, represented by its Convenor, Department

Smt.Shanti Priya Pandey Vs II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)

M/s. Pioneer Builders, Plot No. 652, road No.3 Vs The Executive Engineer Bl-I Execution

K.Uma Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

K. Uma Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries