Disposed

M/s Sri Vensai Metal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2021WP/22340/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of a representation for granting a quarry lease. The High Court, with consent, disposed of the petition directing the respondent to consider the petitioners representation and pass orders within eight weeks

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01.02.2021 and pass necessary orders thereon strictly in accordance with law within eight weeks, after af

M/s Sri Vensai Metal Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAEAD *

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22340 F 2021

¶8

It'1/s Sri Vensai Metat, Rep. by its partner I,4. Swapna Wio Ir,4. Venkataprasad. age 42 years R/o. Ptot No 22,'swathi Apartments. Ameerpet. f_fyOeiJnaJ-^."--"

¶9

AND

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

, 5ecretaflal, IT"!11"^."1,*illg:lr, Hvderabad rep. by its Secretary, tndustries and Commerce Dept., 2 The Director of N4ines and.Geology, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Director of tr,4ines^"aiia Geotogy, Nlzamabfi nbgi6", Niirr"nro District

¶12

The Assistant Director of l,4ines and Geology, Sangareddy, Sanga Redcly District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High colrt ha"v ue pleasea to issue writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature^'of wirtr or IVANDAMUS, action of the Respondent No.3 in not passing orders of Grant for Rough stone on the Representation / Letter of the petitio net dl.o1-02_2o21 submitted along with alr ^the approvars in pursuant to proposars to grant in Proceedings No.2207lel/ sRD/2018, dt.0B-oi-2019 in over an extent of a."ooiects in sv.No.73B, Lakdaram Vilrage, paiancheru Mandar, sanga neJdy oistiict as arbitrary, illegat, unjust, u nconstitutiona I in violation of princif,les or nltuiar'lustice and Mines and Minerars (Deveropment and Reguration) Act, 19s7 and r.s.' tr,,tinor l\i1in era I Concession Rules,^.,1g66.

¶15

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in""Hign court may be pleased 1o direct the 3rd respondenr Deputy Director of Mines Jno ceotogy. Hyi"iru"J io^-p".. orders on the representation dt.o1-02-2021 granting quarry rease for over an extent of 4 00 Hects rn Sy.No.738. Lakdaram viIag", paiancheiu r,4andal, Sanga Rectdy District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the^petitioner: M/s. p. VIJAyA LAKSHMT Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2 2340 0F 2021

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and C eologr for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶22

Tl're learned counsel lor the petitioner states that though the petitioner has submitted a representation on 01 .O2.2021 to rcsp<tnclcnt No.3 d r-rl-r' enclosing all ncccsseir.r, approvals, rc'qlresting to lyant c1uarr.r. lease, no orders are passed thereon till date. Hence, she seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the said representation, at the eariiest.

¶23

The learned Government pleader, on instructions, states that due to Covid-l9 pandemic situation and the subsequent lockdown, and also various administrative exigencies, the representation dated Ol.O2.2O2l, submitted by- the petitioner could not be considered and seeks some time for passing nccessarv orders on tile said representation.

¶24

+. lrt vierr of thc above m:rde submissior-rs, the Writ petition is disposed ol directing respondent No.3-Depr,tt-r, Director of Mines and Geologv, Nizamabad region, Nizamabad, to consider the representation submitted b-v the petitioner on 01.O2.2021, and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in

¶25

¶26

accordance u,ith lau', as expeditiousl;' as possibie, preferab)1' rvithin a period of eight weeks from the date of^{receipt of a} copy of this order. It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 before passing any orders sha1l put the petitioner on notice and afford it an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by respondent No.3 sha1l be communicated to the petitioner. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶27

shall stand ciosed. There sl-ra1l be no order as to costs

¶28

SD/. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶29

To,

¶30

The secretary, lndustries and commerce Dept., state of relangana, secretariat, Hyderabad

¶31

The Director of Ir,4ines and.Geology, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Director of lMines zhd Georogy, Nizamabid negi6n, Nizamaoao District

¶32

The Assistant Director of [,4ines and.Geology, Sangareddy, sanga Reddy District ! 9n"^{CCto t,4/sP. Vilaya LakshmiROvocaie} 1OeUt1 6. Two ccs to GP for l,4ines and Geology, nigh couri for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶33

Two CD Copies B, One Spare Copy

S I'I] tp \

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510912021

<br>1'oc l'rAl6
,-3
ri)
I o
2 B sEPz$ul
;..
}:
S t
f) E.: s'

¶38

ORDER

¶39

WP.No,22340 o1202'l

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

M/s Sri Vensai Metal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Vensai Metal v. The State of Telangana

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

Challapalli Rahul Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Imran Vs The Union of India

M/s Sks Microfinance Limited Vs Society for Elimination for Rural Poverty Department

Mohammad Arshad Vs The State of Telangana

Kanurnuri Raghurama Krishna Raju Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. S.S. Constructions Vs The State of Telangana