Disposed

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024WP/34312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the quashing of quarry licenses and imposition of penalty. The Court directed the revision authority to decide the pending application within three weeks and directed the Assistant Director to issue dispatch permits by December 10. The main petition was subsequently dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to dispose revision within 3 weeks; Respondent No.4 directed to issue dispatch permits by 10.12.2024.

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^340s 1

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI^BHATTACHARYA

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 34312 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ntl/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher, Rep. by^{its Managing PartnerSri T Kranthi} Kumar, Fl/o. H.No.1-1 15, Rajupally^{Village,Narsampet Mandal,Warangal} district -506132, Telangana State.

¶10

...'ET'T'ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary-Cum-Revision} Authority, (Mines and Geology) lndustries^{andCommerce (Mines-l)} - Department, Government ofTelangana,^{Secretariat buildings, Tank Bund,} Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

The Director of Miies and Geology,^{Governmentof Telangana, 2nd Floor,[t4y} Homes Sarovar Complex, Hyderabad,^Telangana.

¶14

The Dy. Director of Mines and^{Geology Warangal, Telangana'}

¶15

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

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyonein the natureof} Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the^{action of the Respondent No.1 in not} disposing the revision application^{dt. .o7.2024filed by the writ Petitionerand not} issuing the transit^permits blocking the^{quarrylease lDs pending revision} application is arbitrary,^{illegal,u nconstitutio nal and violative of principlesof} natural Justice and consequently^{directthe Respondent authorities to unblock} the lD of the Writ Petitioner^{and to issuetransitpermitsto carry out the quarry} operations^{pending revision application before Respondent No.1 in the interestof} justice.

¶18

lA NO:^'t OF 2024

¶19

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 to issue the transit permits to the^petitioner to carry out the quarry operations, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI GOUTHAM REDDY, AGP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA}

¶23

WRIT PETITION^NO .343L2^{0F 2024}

¶24

Mr. G.Krishnaiah,^{learnedcounselfor the petitioner.} '

¶25

Mr. Gautham^{Reddy, leamed Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Minesand Geologr} appearing for respondent^{Nos.I to 4}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The writ petition arises out^{of an order passed by the} Assistant Director^{ofMines and Geolory, Warangalon} 2g.O5.2O24 imposing^{penaltyof approximately 12' 18 croreson} the petitioner for^{extracting and transporting Metal for a} quantit5r ol 262630.6 MT^{outsidethe leasedarea and in} violation of The^{Telangana StateMinor Mineral Concession} Rules, i966^{(for short,1966 Rules).}

¶28

Learned counsel appearing^{for the petitioner has placed a} common order^{of the learned SingieJudgeof the High Court of} Andhra Pradesh^{in W.P.No.B39O ol 2O18 and other similarwrit} petitions by which the Court^{held that Section22 of The Mines} and Minerals^{(Developmentand Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short,} 'MMDR Act') must^{prevail in the matterof jurisdictionwhen} there is any conflict with the^{1966 Rules. The Court accordingly} held that the Assistant Director of^{Minesor any other authority} of the State cannot determine^{the culpability of the personsaid} to be in violation of the^{MMDR Act or the Concession Rules or}

l 1 j1

le',ry a penalry since only a Court of competent jurisdiction can go into the question of lery of penalty.

¶33

The above order was followed by 3 Co-ordinate Benches in this Court r.t hich gave interim relief to the petitioners in those cases- In onc of the orders in W.p.No.14963 of 2024, tine learned Single Judge granted interim relief to the petitioner on 14.06.2024 in terms of dispatch of permits for transportation of building materiai. The writ petition was subsequently disposed on 28.06.2024 by directing the respondent No.l/the State of Telangana, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyclerabad, to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within a certain time frame. The Court directed the concerned authority to issue dispatch permits in favour of the petitioner pending adjudication of the revision.

¶34

Considering the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government^pleader for Mines and Geologr with regard to the pendency of the revision before the respondent No. 1 in this case, as well as the fact that the petitioner,s trucks are stuck in the absence of dispatch permits, the respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within 3 weeks from 09.12.2024. The respondent No.4 shall issue dispatch permits to the petition er by LO.I2.2O24 subject

I \

to the outcome of the revision which is presently pending adjudication.

¶39

Counsel submits that nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition. W.P.No.34312 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shail stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There

¶40

shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

SD/. L.LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

. '1-'

sEcTlbN oFFTCER

1 The Principal Secretary-Cum-^{RevisionAuthority' (Mines and Geology)} lndustries'and Commerce^{(Mines-l) Department,Governmentof Telangana,} Secretariat buildings,^{Tank'Bund, Hyderabad, Telangana' State of Telangana'} The Director of Miies and Geology,-Government^{of Telangana, 2nd Floor, My} Homes Sarovar Complex,^{Hyderabad, Telangana} -

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

4 The A6sistant Director of Mines and^{Geology, Warangal, Telangana} One CC to SRI GOURIDEVI^{KRISHNAIAH, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶50

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

¶51

Two CD Copies

PSK. *,o,

\ PSK '.,V

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212024

ORDER

WP.No.34312 o12024

1 HE STAT A,
(
v
7',
1 I 0E[ 2024
t
DF.sparCB ,;o

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶61

lo^{@r^} ffi;

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kota konda Pitchaiah Vs The Union of India

Arelli Sailaja Vs Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

M/s. Nmd Construction Vs The State Bank of India

Ahmed Akram Abbas Vs The Union Government Of India

Busa Komal Vs The State of Telangana