Dismissed

V.Mallesham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/33430/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 concerning the black marketing of coal produced by Singareni Coal Mines. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing police and revenue authorities to ensure the implementation of existing anti-diversion measures detailed in a counter-affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to police and revenue authorities to ensure implementation of existing anti-theft measures and to initiate criminal action.

V.Mallesham Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^33e3 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK^ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33430 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Mallesham, S/o Agamallaiah^(Advocate) Rl/o Plot^{No.8, Navya Residency, New} Vidyanagar, Neredment, Secunderabad -^56.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of^{Coa[ and ]vlines,} New Delhi.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra^{Pradesh,Hyderabad.}

¶14

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal^Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary,} Department of Mines and Geology Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Superintendent of Police, tVledak District at Sangareddy.

¶17

The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad^{District,Adilabad.}

¶18

The Superintendent of Police, Khammam^{District, Khammam.}

¶19

The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar^{District, Karimnagar.}

¶20

10.The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy.

¶21

'I 1 . The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

¶22

12.The District Collector, Khammam District,^Khammam.

¶23

13.The District Collector,^Karimnagar District,^Karimnagar.

¶24

The Managing Director, Singareni Coal Mines Ltds, Singareni Bhava n, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶25

.....RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition Under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records and remarks of the respondents herein relating to and connected with the black marketing of coal, being produced by the Singareni Coal Mines in Karimnagar and Adilabad districts, by the mafia^people and thereby causing loss to the State exchequer in crores of rupees and to direct the respondents herein to take appropriate action against the mafia^{people involved} in such black marketing of coal.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : LETTER

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 5 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3, 6 to 9 : GP FOR HOME

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4, 10 to 13 : G.P FOR REVENUE

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.14 : SRI NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO

¶32

The Court made the following ORDER

¶33

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶34

AND

¶35

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AITIL KUMAR JT'KANTI

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.3343O of 2OLl

¶37

ORDER.' @er the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶38

None for the parties. Record perused.

¶39

This petition has been registered on the basis of a news item published in Telugu Daily Newspaper ,Namasthe Telarrgala' dated 05.08.20 1 1.

¶40

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to black marketing of coal which is being produced by Singareni Coal Mines in Karimnagar and Adilabad Districts.

¶41

Respondent No.5 has filed an affrdavit wherein in paragraph Nos.3, 4 ald 5, following stand has been taken:

¶42

"3. It is respectfully submitted that the Chief Secretar5r to the Government of Andhra Pradesh has convened a meeting of all the concerned authorities on Ol.OB.2O|2 to

¶43

,/ r'

¶44

¶45

review the action already^{taken and aiso} action proposed to be^{takenin future to curb} this mal-practice.^{Pursuant theretoithas} been decided that a Multi^{Disciplinary Team} at district level will be constituted^{by the} District Collector, Medak^{Districtto conduct} surprise checks and raids^{tocurb the} diversion of coal. The^{DistrictCollectorhas} constituted Multi Disciplinary^{Teamwith the} following members vide his order^dated 01.08.2012:

¶46

(1) Revenue Divisional Officer,^Siddipet (21 Deputy Superintendent of^Police, Siddipet

¶47

¶48

Commercial Tax O{ficer,^SiddiPet

¶49

l4l District Panchayat Officer, Medak^or his representative

¶50

(s) General Manager, Industries or^his representative

¶51

(6) Assistant Director, Mines^and Geolory and

¶52

(7) Representative of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

¶53

It is respectfully submitted that^the Director General (Vigilarrce & Enforcement) has also been requested to carryout enquiry into the matter and submit a detailed report. A11 possible steps have taken to^{curb the theft} of coal while^transporting the^{same from} Singareni Collieries^{to its destination.}

¶54

¶55

It is respectfully submitted that stringent measures have been taken by both the Police ald Revenue authorities and necessary instructions are issued to tf-re concerned Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Potce, VROs to keep an eye on the local lorries passing through tl.e coal drums besides directing the Tahsildar arrd Mandal Revenue Inspectors to f e criminal cases against those persons, who are involved in this activity. Hence this affidavit."

¶56

Following aforesaid stand taken in the counter a-ffidavit, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the Police and revenue authorities to ensure that the steps referred to paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the counter are being implemented. However, there shall be no order as to costs

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶58

stand closed

¶59

SD/. V.KAVITHA

¶60

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶61

SECTION OFFICER

¶62

¶63

'l . The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶64

The Secretary,^{Unionof lndia,tvtinistryof Coaland Mines, New Delhi'}

¶65

The Director General^{of Police, Governmentof Andhra Pradesh'Hyderabad}

¶66

The Principal Secretary,^{Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of} Revenue, Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶67

The Principal^{Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of} Mines and Geology Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶68

The Superintendent^{of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy'}

¶69

The Superintendent^{of Police, AdilabadDistrict,Adilabad.}

¶70

The Superintendent^{of Police, Khammam District' Khammam'}

¶71

The Superintendent^{of Police, KarimnagdrDistrict,Karimnagar'}

¶72

'10.The District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy'

SA GJ

1^'l . The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 12.The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. 1 3. The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 14.The Managing Director, Singareni Coal Mines Ltds, Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶77

Two ccs to GP FoR rurNES AND GEoLoGy, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 16.Two ccs to GP FoR GENERAL ADM|NrsrRATroN, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 17.Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶78

18.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 19.One CC to Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 20.Two CD Copies

)rrr.(

) \

0 t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212023

5TATE 9
{
o
t B I\t\ 1t1\ .T
::)cr)
*D c :-i1 i

ORDER

WP.No.33430 of 2011

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS

V.Mallesham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mallesham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Enugu Venkata Reddy, Adilabad District Vs the Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and 5 Others

Natwork of persons with disabilities Organizations Vs The Director, Disabled Welfare Department

Y. Yadav Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Udayabhasker, Died per LRs Vs the M.D., Ap State Handlooms Coop.Society Ltd, and Another

K.v.Kishan Rao Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Registrar

Vodafone Essar South Limited, rep.by its Sr.Manager-Legal Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep.by its