Disposed

Society for Tribal Women Advancement and Rehabilitation(Star v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC4 Jul 2016WP/20751/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition for mandamus seeking a mining lease. After noting that the application was recommended for rejection, the court permitted the petitioner to challenge the rejection order while directing the authority to communicate the order within one week.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to challenge the rejection order with a direction to the respondent to communicate the order within one week.

Society for Tribal Women Advancement and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 20751 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶5

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to grant lease of the Tribal Land applied for by the Petitioner Society for an extent of 47.25 Hectares, situated in Survey Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of nimalapadu Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for a period of 20 years for extracting Minerals like Calcite and Mica and pass…”

¶6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondents 1 to 4. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶7

3. Though various grounds are urged in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the application dated 02.06.2011 made by the petitioner seeking grant of mining lease. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the application of the petitioner for mining lease for Calcite over an extent of Ac.164.06 Hectares in Survey Nos. 35,

¶8

36, 37, 38 and 39 of Nimmalapadu Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Visakhapatnam District was recommended for rejection on 25.07.2014 itself. She produced a copy of the instructions received by her from respondent No.4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that till date, copy of the order of rejection has not been communicated to the petitioner.

¶9

4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the order of rejection of its application for grant of mining lease. It is needless to mention that the respondent No.4 shall communicate a copy of the order of rejection to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶10

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶11

04.07.2016 DRK

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

W.P.No.20751 of 2016

¶14

04.07.2016

Society for Tribal Women Advancement and Rehabilitation(Star v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Society for Tribal Women Advancement and Rehabilitation(Star v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Kolluri Paul S/o.Late Israel Vs The State of Telangana

Nimma Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Anuradha , B. Vani, Vs The State of Telangana

V.Lakshmi Narayana Vs K.Prabhakar Reddy

Angadi Pitchaiah, Vs State of Aandhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

Jadav Murahari Vs The STate of Telangana