Disposed

B .a .S . Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Telangana HC10 Sept 2013WP/26326/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the authorities to dispose of a revision petition pending for nearly six years. The Court held that issuing a hearing notice on the same day as the hearing date is unfair and directed the granting of three months for disposal after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 to dispose of the Revision Petition within three months after affording fair hearing by giving advance notices of hearing.

B .a .S . Granites Vs Government of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26326 of 2013 Dated: 10.09.2013

¶2

Between:

¶3

B.A.S. Granites Rep. by its partner M. Ashwarthanarayana .. Petitioner. and Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce Department Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 3 others. .. Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vedula Srinivas

¶4

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Mines & Geology

¶5

The Court made the following:

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This writ petition is filed with a grievance that respondent No.1 has not been disposing of the petitioner’s Revision Petition from the year 2007, even though sporadic notices are being given for hearing of the Revision Petition.

¶8

The petitioner pleaded that it has filed a Revision Petition on being permitted to do so by a Division Bench of this Court against the order of respondent No.2, granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of black granite.

¶9

A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.1 has issued at least two telegraphic notices for hearing of the case. Under one telegraphic notice, the date of hearing was fixed as 23.01.2013 and in the other notice, it was mentioned as 04.04.2013. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that hearing of the Revision Petition has not taken place so far and that respondent No.4 has been carrying on mining lease even though the dispute raised by the petitioner is hanging fire for a number of years.

¶10

In my opinion, there can be hardly any justification for respondent No.1 to keep the Revision Petition pending for nearly six years. As the Revision Petition has not been disposed of so far, the same needs to be heard and disposed of within a reasonable time. It

¶11

is, however, noticed from telegraphic notice, dated 03.04.2013, that the notice was sent through telegram on 03.04.2013 informing that the hearing date is fixed as 04.04.2013. Such a procedure mocks at the concept of fair hearing. The parties are entitled to reasonable time to plan and prepare for the hearing. When the Revision Petition is pending for six years, there is no reason why respondent No.1 should not give a notice providing sufficient time to the parties to appear and advance their respective pleas at the hearing.

¶12

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the Revision Petition, after affording an opportunity of fair hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 by giving advance notices of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶13

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.32556 of 2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶16

10.09.2013 v v

B .a .S . Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B .a .S . Granites v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Meenakshi Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs The District Collector

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bajini Veeraiah Vs The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records

Cheera Shankaramma, Vs The District Collector

Moghal Sahiblal Baig, Vs The Regional Passport Officer