Allowed

M/s.Bandi Rocks LLP v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2023WP/24675/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the cancellation of a quarry lease and a non-speaking rejection of a revision petition due to violation of natural justice, directing authorities to afford the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to submit an explanation.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders dated 10.06.2019 and 21.09.2019; direct Deputy Director to permit petitioner to submit explanation within 2 weeks and take decision within 2 weeks thereafter.

M/s.Bandi Rocks LLP Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUST]CE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2467 5 oF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Bandi Rocks LLP, Rep. by^{its Managing PartnerSri B. ChandraReddy,} S/o Late Ram Reddy, age 58^years, No.2-20-411174,^{Sai Ram Nagar Colony,} Chilkurnagar Road, Uppal, Ranga Reddy^- 500^039.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Secretary, lndustries and Commerce} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Th6 Director of Mines and Geology,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy Director of Mines^{and Geology,} Hyderabad. . - rl

¶15

The Asaistant Director of Mines and^{Geology, Yadadri} -^{Bhuvanagiri-e}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe^Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring^{the questioning Proceedings of the Deputy} Director of Mines and Geology in^{Proc.3888/TQL^/DR/2018'dt.10-06- 2019 in} - cancelling the^{quarry lease granted by transfer in Proc.No.3888/TOL^/DRy2018,} dt.24-,12-2}18 in over an^{extent of 1.000 Hect. ln sy.No.76of Tirumalagiri Village,} Bommalaramaram^{Mandal, Nalgonda Districtand the action of the"tst respondent} in rejecting the^{Revision Petitionin Memo.No.215O|M1(2)12O19-2, dt.21-o9-2019} asarbitrary,illegal,unjustunconstitutionalandinviolationofprinciplesofnatural justice and under Mines^{and Minerals (Developmentand Regulation) Act' 1957} and T.S. Minor^{Mineral ConcessionRules'1966'}

¶18

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

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 suspend the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology in Proc.No.3888/TQL/YDR/2018, dt.10-06-2019 and the proceedings of Respondent No.1 in Memo.No.2150/M.l(2)l 2019-2, dt.21-09-2019, pending disposat of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. N.SHOBA Counset for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶25

W.P.No. 24675 of 2Ol9

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

In this writ petition, th e petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geologr, dated 10.06.2019 in cancelling^{the quarry} lease granted to the petitioner by lransfer^{in proceedingsdated} 24.t2.2O18 ove r an extent of^{1.000 Hectare in Survey No'76 of} Tirumalagiri Vittage,^{BommalaramaramMandal,Nalgonda} Districl, as illegal^{and in violation of principles of natural justice} and also the action^{of the respondentNo 1 inrejectingthe} Revision Petition^{filed by lhepetitioner in} Memo No.2l50/MI(2)l2)lg-2,^{dated 21 09 2019 byway ofnon-} speaking^{order and to pass such other order or orders'}

¶28

Learned^{counsel for the petitioner submitted thatwhile} issuingshowcausenotice,theDepuwDirectorofMinesand Geolory^{did not providenecessarydocumentsand therefore'the} petitioner^{had made an application underRTI Act andsame was} provided^{and received by the petitioneron 22'05'2019'It is} Submittedthatthepetitionerhadsoughttor20daystime thereafter^{to submit his explanationHowever' the respondent} 1

¶29

¶30

PMD,J w.P.No. 24675 of 20i9

¶31

No.3 has not considcred the same and has curnccllcd the quarr,v lcasc granted to the petitioner by transfer. It is submitted that petitioner had thereafter filed a revision petition before the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No.1 has also rclected the petition by way of non_speaking order without considering the contentions raised by the pedtioner in his explanatior_r.

¶32

Learned Government pleader for Mines and Geology IS also heard.

¶33

Having regard to the fact that the impugned order of cancellation of quarry lease was passed without considerrng the explanation of the petitioner, this Court finds that rt is lia ble to be set aside. Further, the revision order passed by the respondent No. 1 also needs to be set aside as it is passed without dealing with the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the Revision Order dated 2l.Og.2(,lg passed by the respondent No. I is set aside and the order of cancellation of quarry lease by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geologr dated 10.06.2019 is also set aside and the respondent No.3 is directed to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation within a perrod of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a cop! of this order and

¶34

¶35

.".". rour" "f{oo;{

¶36

thereafter, the respondent No.3 is dirccted to take a decision on the explanation filed by the petitioner withir_r a Penod of rwo (2) weeks therefrom and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶37

Accordingly, this r,r rrit petition is disposed ol There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, if anY, pending in this wrj t petition, shall stand closed.

//rRUEcopy//

.i{r?siffi,yEEt6Hffi

SECTION bFFtCER

1 2 3

i;5,trg;g;uilt.f.q.#g[.Er,?'d#::;T::,-r.r,nes,a,e.f PSK. GJP / ':f

I 1 I I

i i

I ,I I I I I I I I I I l

ii i l

i I l I

HIGH^COURT

DATED:17^tO4l2O23

ORDER

WP.No.24675^{of 2019}

¶56

Ttl
ir!$
1]
\lr. '
..'.).,--. ,..r -,, .. r ,: . r-.
': :, ,,...:...r.

¶57

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

M/s.Bandi Rocks LLP v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Bandi Rocks LLP 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

Anjaneyulu Vs M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

My Gym Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 Others

Vardeboina Babu Vs The District Collector

M/s Azra Plastics Industries Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Rahmath Banu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M. Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana