PIL challenging a memo allowing a revision against a mineral demand notice. Court set aside the memo, restored the revision application, and directed the government to reconsider it afresh within 12 weeks.
Memo dated 14.11.2012 set aside; revision application restored; government directed to pass fresh order within 12 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.169 OF 2014
DATED: 08.06.2015
Between:
N.Mohan Kumar
… Petitioner
and
State of Andhra Pradesh and others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.169 of 2014
PC: (per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners seek to challenge the memo, dated 14.11.2012 whereby the revision application filed by the seventh respondent against the demand notice, dated 30.09.2009 has been allowed in exercise of the powers under Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
The Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Government of Andhra Pradesh has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 and in the last paragraph made a statement that if the Court finds that the memo impugned is wrong, it may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the authority for passing appropriate orders afresh.
Learned Advocate General fairly submits that in view of the counter-affidavit, the memo impugned may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the State Government for passing a fresh order on the revision application filed by the seventh respondent challenging the demand notice, dated 30.09.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also has agreed for adopting such course of action.
Hence, we dispose of this PIL by the following order:
“The memo, dated 14.11.2012 is set aside. The revision application filed by the seventh respondent is restored to file. The first respondent shall consider the revision afresh as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today. It is needless to mention that the first respondent shall consider the revision on merits in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open.”
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
8th JUNE, 2015.
S.V. BHATT, J
kvni
N.Mohan Kumar
State of Andhra Pradesh
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
