Dismissed

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Jun 2013WP/27335/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, a firm, challenged the dismissal of their revision petition filed with a 1200-day delay claiming the managing partner's illness prevented timely filing. The court rejected the condonation of delay as the petitioner had other partners and the illness timeline was implausible, finding no error warranting judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises Vs The Government of Andhra… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27335 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the imvenkugned order dt. 28.11.2008 of 1^st respondent in Memo No.8376/M.II(1)/2007 confirming the order dt.24.04.2004 of 2^nd respondent in proceedings No.16577/R3(2)/2003.

¶5

2. The petitioner is a managing partner of M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises and had applied on 11.11.2002 to 4^th respondent i.e., Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole, Prakasam District for grant of quarry lease for black galaxy granite in an extent of 1.000 Hectare of land in Sy.No.58/P of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. Thereafter a survey was conducted by 4^th respondent on 03.12.2002 and petitioner participated in the said survey. The 5^th respondent also appears to have submitted an application for grant of quarry lease for the same area. The 4^th respondent recommended rejection of the petitioner’s quarry lease application on the ground that:

¶6

a) Area applied for includes magazine premises,

¶7

b) Buffer left in between the leases/ licences, and

¶8

c) Partly overlapping with quarry lease held by 5^th respondent.

¶9

3. The 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice dt.17.12.2003 to petitioner mentioning these facts and requested the petitioner to submit its reply. The petitioner did not submit any reply. Therefore a rejection order was passed by 2^nd respondent dt.24.04.2004 in proceedings No.16577/R3-2/2003.

¶10

4. Twelve hundred (1200) days later, the petitioner filed a revision before 1^st respondent in 2007 contending that petitioner did not received the show cause notice dt. 17.12.2003 as Managing partner of petitioner was not feeling well at that time and he had joined in Ongole Nursing Home; that when he was approached 4^th respondent later, he came to know that a show cause notice was issued seeking its reply; the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice on account of nonavailability of its Managing Partner on account of his illness. Managing Partner of petitioner again fell ill and got hospitalized and his doctor advised him not to move from the bed and take strict bed rest; and therefore there was a

¶11

delay of 1200 days in filing the revision under Rule 235 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for Short “APMMR”). The petitioner enclosed to the revision a medical certificate dt.12.02.2007 issued by Dr.P.Venkateswarlu of Sai Venkata Diabetic Care Centre, Ongole certifying that petitioner was suffering from viral fever and body pains since 12.12.2003, that was under treatment of Dr.P.Venkateswarlu in the said clinic and he was advised to take strict bed rest from 12.12.2003 to 15.02.2007.

¶12

5. The 1st respondent by order

¶13

28.11.2008 in Memo No.8376/M.II(1)/2007, dismissed the revision application on the ground that the revision is time barred and also on merits. The 1^st respondent held that even though the petitioner received the order dt.24.04.2004 of 2^nd respondent on 26.06.2004, the revision was not filed within the period of limitation; the reason put forth by the petitioner for delay in filing the revision petition is not convincing; 5^th respondent also filed an application for grant of quarry lease in the same area on 03.12.2005; and that after filing of an application for grant of quarry lease by 5^th respondent and when the

¶14

said application is under active consideration for granting quarry lease, the petitioner has filed this petition with delay. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶15

6. Heard Sri A.Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Smt.N.Shoba, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶16

7. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has not received the show cause notice as its Managing Partner was hospitalized at that time and that it also did not receive the order dt.24.04.2004 of 2^nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application. He also contended that orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are arbitrary and illegal and that the respondents cannot consider the application of 5^th respondent for grant of quarry lease.

¶17

8. The learned Government Pleader, however, contended that the order dt.24.04.2004 passed by 2^nd respondent was served on 26.06.2004 on the petitioner as noted in para No.12 of the order of 1^st respondent and the contention of the petitioner that the said order was not

¶18

served on him cannot be accepted. He also pointed out that the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision before the 1^st respondent but it has not alleged therein that it had not received the order dt.24.04.2004 of 2^nd respondent. He contended that no valid reason has been given for condonation of delay of 1200 days in filing the revision by petitioner and the medical certificate filed by petitioner stating that its Managing Partner is suffering from viral fever and body pains since 12.12.2003 and that he is advised to take strict bed rest from 12.12.2003 to 15.02.2007, cannot be accepted. I have noted the contentions of both sides.

¶19

9. The petitioner had applied for grant of quarry lease for black granite on 11.11.2002 in respect of 1 hectare in survey No.58/P, Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam Dsitrict. Admittedly, the area was surveyed on 03.12.2002 and the petitioner also participated in the said survey. The survey report indicated that the area applied by the petitioner included magazine premises and also buffer left in between the leases and there is some over lapping with the area covered by quarry lease held by 5^th respondent which was in force up to 03.08.2003. Therefore, 2^nd

¶20

respondent rejected the quarry lease application of petitioner by order dt.24.04.2004 in proceedings No.16577/R3(2)/2003.

¶21

10. The petitioner filed a revision in February, 2007 with delay of 1200 days under Section 35 of APMMR stating that on account of ill health of its Managing partner, it could not file the revision within time and so the delay in filing the revision be condoned. It enclosed medical certificate dt.12.02.2007 issued by Dr.Pamidi Venkateswarlu of Sai Venkata Diabetic Care Centre stating that the Managing partner of petitioner was suffering from viral fever and body pains since 12.12.2003, that he was under treatment and he advised the Managing Partner of petitioner to take strict bed rest from 12.12.2003 to 15.02.2007.

¶22

11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a firm and apart from the Managing Partner there were also other partners. Even if he was ill, the other partners in the firm could have acted diligently and filed a revision within time. It is also difficult to accept that the petitioner’s Managing Partner was ill from 12.12.2003 to 15.02.2007 i.e., for more than 3 years continuously and he was taking bed rest. Considering these facts, the 1^st respondent

¶23

rightly held that the plea of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the revision is not convincing. I also do not accept the contention of counsel for petitioner that the petitioner did not receive the order dt.22.04.2004 of 2^nd respondent. Such a plea was not raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner before 1^st respondent. The order of 1^st respondent also states that petitioner received it on 26.06.2004 and this is not challenged in the writ petition.

¶24

12. So I am of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶25

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶27

____________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶28

Date:17.06.2013 Knl

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Penta Venkata Rao, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Lakki Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Akbal Vs Chinta Venkata Reddy

Smt. Bobbili Parvathi Vs Sri Atla Ananda Rao

Smt. Akinapalli Nappinamma, Vs The District Collector

Chinnaji Vs The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal