Partly allowed

Malothu Ramchander v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022WP/8330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning a quarries lease transfer dispute. The Court held the petitioner in W.P. No.8330 had no independent right to exclude the original lessee. It granted relief to W.P. No.11390 by directing consideration of the transfer application while dismissing the other petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.8330 of 2021 is dismissed. Writ Petition No.11390 of 2022 is allowed; directed to consider the transfer application within 120 days.

Malothu Ramchander Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 1'1390 OF 2022

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.8330 OF 2021

¶9

W.P.No.1 1390 of 2022

¶10

Betwee n:

¶11

Rachakonda Chakradhar Rao, S/o. Sri R Ranga Rao, Aged about 46^years, Occ ; Business, R/o. H.No. 2231A, Kachapur Post and Village, Koheda Mandal Siddipet District 505 473 Proprietor of M/ s. Akshara Sai Granites.

¶12

M/s. Mahitha Granites, a^partnership firm Having its office at H.No. 7-1-1000, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar 50500'1 , Rep by its Partner. C. V. Naveen Kumar,

¶13

,..PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat^at Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary.

¶16

The Direcior of Mines and Geology, Mines and Geology Department,^Stateof Telangana.

¶17

The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal,^{Stateof Telangana.}

¶18

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar^District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents^{in consideringthe} online application vide Lessee 1D0511200034^with transaction^{lD T/KRM/7025} dated 1711212020 submitted by the Petitioners seeking^{to transferof the quarry} lease held by the Petitioner no. t herein in favour of a registered^{partnership firm} Petitioner no.2 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the^{procedure contemplated} under Telangana State Minor lvlineral Concession^{Rules, 1966 and violatlve of} Articles 14,19 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia.

I I I i

il .t

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

Petition Under section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to} direct the Respondents to^{consider the online applicationvide Lessee} 1D0511200034 with transaction^{IDT/KRIM17025daled1711212020 submitted by} the Petitioners seeking^{to transfer the quarry lease heldby the petitioner no.1} herein.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners^{: SRI.T.SURYA SATISH}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents^{: GP FOR MINESAND GEOLOGY}

¶28

W.P.NO: 8330 OF 2021

¶29

Between:

¶30

Malothu Ramchander, S/o.^{Chandru Nayak, aged about 48 years, Occupation;} Business, resident of^{No.7-2-21, MankamhaThota, Karimnagar Town and Distrlct-} 505 001, Telangana.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

1 The State of Telangana, represented^{by its PrincipalSecretary, ln-dustries and} Commerce (MinesfDepartment,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500022'} Telangana.

¶34

.) The Director of^lVlines and^{Geology,Telangana State, My Home Sarover} Plaza, FlalNo. 203 and^{204, H.No. 5-9/22,Shapurwadi' Adarsh Nagar,} Secretariat Road, Hyderabad^{- 500 063, Telangana}

¶35

3 The Deoutv Director of^{Mines and Geology,Warangal,1-7-700, Shanthi} Nagar (irostal Colony), Subedari,^{HanumakondaWarangal - 506 002'} Telangana.

¶36

4 The Assistant Director of^{Mines and Geology, H.No.7-2-7731} '1 ,PonnamComplex, Karimnagar - 505 00'1 , Telangana.

¶37

E years, Mr. Rachakonda Occupation Chakradhar : Business,^{Rao, S/o. Sri.} Fl/o. H. No. 2-23lA,^{R. Ranga Rao,} Kachapur^{ag,ed Vlllage, about Koheda45} . ir/andal, Siddipet District^- 505^{473, Telangana.}

¶38

6 Mr. ChitabatiVenkateshwara^{Naveen Kumar, C-V.Naveen Kumar,S/o Sri'} Sarveswara Rao, aged about^{45 years,Occupation: Business, R/o. H. No.} 9/3, Vinayagam Street, R.A.^{Puram, Chennai - 600 021, TamilNaidu.}

¶39

Mahitha Granites, a^{partnershipfirm, Rep. by its Managing Partner,} C.V.Naveen Kumar, at^{H. N.o. 7-1-100, lvlankamma Thota, Karimnagar- 505} 001, Telangana.

,..RESPONDENTS

i I

Petition Under Afiicle 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the cjrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a wrrt of mandamus declaring Lr. No. 156501Q112012 daled 0210212021 of the Respondent No. 04 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and for a direction to the Respondent Nos. 02 to 04 not to transfer the Quarry Lease for Color Granite over an extent of 10.00 Hects. in Sy. No. 160/30 of Ghanpur Village, Saidapur I/andal, Karimnagar District granted in favour of Akshara Sai Granites vide proceedings No. 181421R1-31201 6 dated 1410212019 to the Respondent No. 07 herein or anyone else and also not to issue mining permits in violation of the law and ignorlng the representations of the petitioner.

¶44

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶45

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 not to issue any mining^permits in respect of the Quarry Lease for Color Granite over an extent of 10.00 Hects. in Sy. No.160/30 of Ghanpur Village, Saidapur N/andal, Karimnagar District to any person pending the disposal of the writ petition,

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶47

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR INDUSTRIES ANO COMMERCE

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI.T.SURYA SATISH

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI.PONNAM ASHOK GOUD

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : NONE APPEARED

¶51

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶52

¶53

THE HONOI-RABLE SllT.^{Jl-TSTICI P. NIADTIAVI DEVI}

¶54

wRtr PETlrtoN NO.l 1390 0F 2022

¶55

AND

¶56

WRIT PETITIO.\ NO.8J3O OF 2O2I

¶57

CON,IN{ON ORDER

¶58

W.P.No.11390 of 2022^{has been filed by petitioners1 and2} therein seeking a Writ of^{Mandarrus declaringthe inaction of the} respondents in considering^{the online applicationvidc Lessee} ID0511200034 with transaction^{IDT/KRM/7025dt 17 .12 202Ct} subffritted by tlre^{petitionersseeking the transfer of tlre qira|ry leaseheld} by petitioner No.l in^{favour of the registeled partnershipiinn, ie} ' petitioner No 2 l.rerein, as illegal^{and arbitrarl'}

¶59

Brief facts leading to^{the filing of w.P.No.I 1390 of 2022 are that} petitioner No. I is the Proprietor^{ol the Sole ProplietarY cortce|rl.r c.} petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.I^{was granted a qualrylease lor colotu'} granite by the 2'd respondent^{,lrle proceedings No.18142/111-3/2016} dt14.02.201g and^{thereafter,t'iclepraceedings dt 07'11 2020, t1e 2"'1} respondent accorded^{permissl:on to petitionerNo.l by extendirgthe tiure} o.:,^{for execrrtirrgthe quary lease as tlrere was delay irr execrttitlg1hesatite}

¶60

W.P Nos. I 1390 of 2022 &^{8330of 2021}

¶61

¶62

frorn the^{petitioners' side. After petitionerNo.1 compliedwith all the} statutory requiretnents. the^{4tl' respondent vide proceedings} dt.l2.I I ,2020 executed^{the lease deed in favour of petitionerNo.1and} accordingly,^petitioner No.l^{commencedquarrylease operationsfrom} l3.l I .2020 otru'ards. Meanu'hile,^{one MalothuRamchander,who is the} writ petitioner in W.P.No.8330^{of 202 l, got executeda partnershipdeed} from petitioner No.1^{in W.P.No.11390of 2022 and thereafter, submitted} the said^{pafinershipdeed to the 4'h respondent for transfer of leasein} favour of the^partnership finn.^{The 4tl' respondentenquiredwith the} petitionel about the saue and^{petitionerNo.1 requested the4th} respondent not to accept the^{unregisteredpartnershipdeed and consider} the said request as^withdrawn.

¶63

Thereafter, the said Malothu^{Rarnchander filed W.P.No.8330 of} 202I requesting the Court to^{issue a Writ of Mandamus and to directthe} official respondents^not to^{transfer the quarry lease for colourgranite} over an extertt of l0 acres in^{Survey No.160/30of Ghanpur Village,} Saidapur Mandal, Karirnnagar^{District irt lavourof the 2"d petitionerin} W.P.No.l1390 of 2022 ot to any one^{else and further not to issue}

¶64

¶65

w P Nos. I I190 ol 2022 & ll3l()^{oI 202I}

¶66

¶67

mining pennits in^{violation of law and pass suchother order or ordersas} this Court may deem tit^{and proper in the interestsof justice.}

¶68

This Court^{granted interirn direction in W.PNo.8330 of 202 I} dr.Ol.O4.2O2l directing^{that anytransf'er of quarrylease wili be subject} to the result of the writ^{Petition. w.P.No.11390 0f 2022 was listecl for} admission and when^{the pendencyof W.P.No 8-130 of 202 I was brought} to the notice of this^{Cottrl,a direction was givento list W P No 8330 of} 2027 also aiong with^{W.P.No.11390of 2022. Accordingly,boththe} Writ Petitions were^{listed and heardtogether on 22 03 2022.}

¶69

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners in W.P.No.1 1390 of 2022, Sri} T. Surya Satish, reiterated^{the averraentsmade in the writ affidavit and} submitted that the^{partnership deed which waspresented by Malothu} Ramchander was an^{unregisteredpartnership deed and petitioner No l} has already withdrawn the^{saidpartnershipdeed since it was obtained by} fraud and that^{petitionerNo.1 had executed a registered General Power} of Attorney in favour of^{a partner of petitionerNo 2 finn in} w.P.No.l1390 0f^{2022 and he subrnittedForm-R and other documents} as required under^{the rules for effective transfer of the quarry lease in} favour of the new^{registeredpafinersl.ripfinn, i.e . petitionel No.2.I'le}

¶70

¶71

¶72

W P.Nos.l1390^{of 2022& 8330of2021}

¶73

¶74

slrbmitted^{that petitioners1 and 2 have rnade detailed representatlons} before^{respondents I to 4 for transfer of quarrylease in favour of} petitioner No 2^{and had rnadenecessary payments'but the official} respondents^{have not takenany action and thereforeWPNo11390 of} 2022 has been^flled.

¶75

Sri G M.^{Mohiuddin,learned cottnselfor Mr'Malot}ru} Rarnchander,^{the petitionerin W P No 833 0 of 2Q21'submitted thatthe} contetrtions of^{the writ petitionersin W'PNo'I1390of 2022are} iucorect as^{the paftnership deed between the petitionerNo' 1 in} W.P.No.l^{1390 of 2022 and the petitioner in W'P No 8330 of 2021 was a} registered^{partnership deed and that the share of MalothuRatnchander} was 99%o ar.rd the^{shareof the 1't petitionerin W P'No J1390 of 2A22} was l7o and the^{salre was registered with the Registrar of Firms'} Karirnnagar^{as Docut.nent No 65712020dated 21 11'2020' He submitted} that the^{petitioner in W.P.No 8330 of 202 l was inchidedas a partner} because the^{1" petrtioner in W'PNo 11390 of 2022 dtd not have} suflcient^{fundsto investin the quarrying operatiotls He subrnitted that} the 1't^{petitioner rn W.P.No.l1390 of 2022,whois the 5th respondentin} w.p.No.8330 of^{202 l,calnot unilaterally withdraw the registered}

¶76

W.P.Nos.l I190^{ol'202)& 8l:10 of 2021}

partnership deed and^{allegedthat the officialrespondents ito 3 are} trying to help^{respondentNo'4 by not granting the quarry leasein favotrr} of the^{petitioner in w.P.No.8330 of 2021 . He therefore prayedthat the} quarry lease should not^{be transferred in favourof petitioner No 2 in} W'P.No.11390of2022ortorespondents5to7inW.P.No.8330of202l ignoring his representations.

¶81

7, Learned Government^{Pleaderfor Mineson instnrctions strbrnitted} that due to^{the disputebehveenthe two parties, tlie oflicial respondents} have not transfemed^{the quarrylease in favourof any parly}

¶82

Having regard to^{the rival contentionsand the material on record,} it is noticed that^{initially,the quarry lease was granted in t'avour of the} l"t petitioner in^{W.P.No.11390of 2022 fot a period of 20 years' ie'} from 12.11.2020^{Io 11.11.2040and the same is subsistingas on today} Snbseqtrently,^{the 1'1 petitior.rer in W P No I 1390 of 2022' Mr'} Rachakonda^{Chakadhar Rao, seeus to have submitteda copl' of the} partnerslripdeedenteredintobybimwithMalothLrRalnchanderarrd also executed an^{irrevocable GeneralPower of Attorneyin favolrr of Sri} Chitabati^{VenkateshwaraNaveenKumar ancl therefore'the 4'h} respondent^{had issued a letterdt 191 1 '2020 directing petitionerNo l in}

¶83

T-

¶84

w PNos lll90 of2022^{& tt.ll0ol202l}

¶85

¶86

W.P.No.l 1390^{of 2022to explainthe contradictory standstakenby him'} It appears that^{there is a dispute between petitionerNo' 1 in} W.P.No.l1390^{of 2022 arrd the petitionerin W'P No'8330of 2021as} regards the alleged^{partnershipdeedentered into by them' The parties} may have to^{approachthe appropriate forum for adjudication ofthe said} disputes. Since^{tlre quarrylease granted in favour of petitionerNo l in} W.P.No.l1390 of^{2022 is subsisting, the officialrespondentsare} directed to^{cottsider the application tnade by petitionerNo'1in} w.p.No I1390 ol^{2022 for transferof the lease in favotr of petitioner} No.2 rn W.P.No.l1390^{of 2022 and pass a speaking order thereon} expeditiotrsll,,,pret'erablyr,vitlrinaperiodofl20daysfrorntlredateof leceipt of a copy^{of this order'The petitioner in W P'No'8330of 2021} wouldgetarightorinterestinthequarryleaseonlythrouglrpetitionel No.l in W.P.No.^{11390 of 2011and therefore,has no right of} consideration^{in exclusion of petitioner No l in W P No 11390of 2022'} Tlreretbre, W.P.No.8330^{of 2021 is rejected'}

¶87

g.lttvielvoftheabove,WritPetitionNo.8330of202lisdismissed

¶88

and W.P.No.l1390 of^{2022 is allowed No orderas to costsin both the} Writ Petitions

¶89

-C L

¶90

w.P.Nos I I^l9() ot 2021 & 8ll0 ol'2()2 I

Pending miscellaneous petitions. if any, in these Writ Petitions

¶95

shall stand closed.

¶96

SD/. K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (i

.t ,i ,l

SECTION OFFICER

Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES^{AND COMMERCE, High Court for the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶101

Two CCs to GP FOR MINES^{AND GEOLOGY, High Court for the state of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶102

One cC to SRt.e .V.MOHIUDDIN,^Advocate [oPUC]

¶103

One CC to SRI.T.SURYA SATISH,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶104

One CC to SRI.PONNAM ASHOK^{GOUD,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶105

Two CD Copies

¶106

One spare copy

S.A

A-

ri I I I l

ili' ri ;,1 l,i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610712022

COMMON ORDER

1 t\l; a l{:
16 J tlI 7[22 c)
\r-l *
,, ti
-

¶117

W.P.NO.11390 0F²⁰²² AND

¶118

WP.No.8330 of²⁰²¹

¶119

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶120

o
tvl A-
t fld"-

Malothu Ramchander v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malothu Ramchander v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

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

S. Bhaskar, And 17 Others Vs The Government of Telangana, And 4 Others

A.Venu Vs The State of Telangana

K.Bhagya Laxmi Vs The District Educational Officer

P.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Parupelly Shekar Varma Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

A. Shyam Naik Vs State of Telangana, And 2 Others