Allowed

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Oct 2013WP/28775/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that applications for sand removal filed before the expiry of Rule-9L's six-month validity period must be considered. The Court directed the authorities to decide and communicate the outcome within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents No.2 and 5 to consider the applications, take appropriate decision based on authority reports, and communicate within one month.

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs The… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28775 of 2013

¶3

Date:04.10.2013

¶4

Between: Kothapalli Satyanarayana Murthy, S/p Chinna Veeranna and another.

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Hyderabad and five others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the petitioners’ applications, dated 22.05.2012 and 28.05.2012, for permission to remove the sand accumulated in their patta land admeasuring Ac.1.72 cents in Survey No.189/2 of Mulakallanka Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, are kept pending.

¶12

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that before Rule-9L of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) was introduced under G.O.Ms.No.142, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 13.10.2012, the petitioners made their

¶13

applications to the District Water Management Authority (DWMA) as per the then existing Rules and after processing the said applications, the authorities, such as the Executive Engineer, Godavari Head Works Division, Dowlaiswaram, vide his letter, dated 21.12.2012 addressed to the Project Director (DWMA), the Tahsildar, Seethanagaram, in his letter, dated 08.09.2012 and the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Seethanagaram, vide her letter, dated 21.02.2013, addressed to the Project Director and Member Convenor, Andhra Pradesh WALTA District Authority, sent their recommendations for grant of de-casting permission to the petitioners. Purportedly, on the ground that the duration of Rule-9L of the Rules has expired on the expiry of six months from the date of its introduction, the petitioners’ applications are not being considered.

¶14

This Court in Writ Petition No.26637 of 2013 has considered similar grievance of the petitioners therein and in order, dated 13.09.2013, it has held that irrespective of the interpretation that may be given to Rule-9L of the Rules regarding the period of its validity, the applications made prior to the expiry of the six months period from the date the said Rule came into force shall be considered even after the expiry of six months.

¶15

Inasmuch as the petitioners made their applications much before the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of Rule-9L of the Rules, their applications deserve to be considered.

¶16

In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 5 to consider the petitioners’ applications in the light of the reports submitted by the various authorities concerned, take

¶17

appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.35728 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 04^th October 2013 DR

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Jawahar Nagar Colony Welfare Committee, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Sri Hasmukh J.Thakkar, Vs The District Collector

A.K. Narender, S/o. K. Mohan Rao, Vs Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre)

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational Vs The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Palagani Yallamanda Reddy Vs Danda Venkateswara Reddy

Madala Venkata Mallika, Vs Madala Kotaiah