Disposed

Mukthi Venkateswarlu v. The Union of India Rep. its Secretary

Telangana HC12 Apr 2016WP/11922/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition challenging the inaction of authorities regarding a 2007 mining lease application. The court directed the authorities to process the application, record reasons if rejected, and do so within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing authorities to consider the mining lease application and take a decision within three months or record reasons for rejection.

Mukthi Venkateswarlu Vs The Union of India Rep. its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11922 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The prayer of the petitioner in this case is as under:

¶4

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in processing and forwarding the petitioner’s application dated 18.07.2007 for granting of Mining Lease for Iron Ore for an extent of 4.80 Hectors in the compartment number 68 of Kothagudem Division, Bayyaram range, Motlathimmapuram Village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District, State of Telangana which is a ‘Notified Schedule Area’ is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to process and forward the same to the 1^st respondent of the petitioner’s application dated 18.07.2007 to the 1^st respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Though the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Telangana and the learned Government Pleader for Forests would assert that the petitioner’s application, dating back to the year 2007, cannot be acted upon in the light of the changed circumstances due to various factors, this Court is of the opinion that as no decision has been taken by the authorities concerned upon the application made by the petitioner for grant of mining lease, it is for them to apply their mind to the said application and take a decision as to whether the same can be accepted or is liable to be rejected, be it on whatever ground.

¶6

As the authorities are yet to exercise their minds in this regard, no cause is made out for interference by this Court. However, as it

¶7

would not be open to the authorities concerned to keep such an application pending indefinitely, the writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of a mining lease in accordance with law and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the petitioner’s application is rejected, the reasons therefor shall be duly recorded and communicated to him.

¶8

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶9

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 12^th April, 2016 IBL

Mukthi Venkateswarlu v. The Union of India Rep. its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukthi Venkateswarlu v. The Union of India Rep. its Secretary

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

Nunavath Gani, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Aurelia Laterite Mining Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Aitha Dhanalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Lalaiah Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Rehnuma E Millat, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Sadiam Ramesh, Vs The Union of India