Partly allowed

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/34765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the blocking of IDs and non-issuance of dispatch permits for leased quarry areas. The Court directed the Principal Secretary to dispose of the pending revision within one month, conditional on the petitioner depositing 50% of the total penalty by December 21, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to issue dispatch permits and Principal Secretary to dispose of revision by 01.02.2025, upon petitioner depositing 50% by 21.12.2024.

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, TI.[E TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34765 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings, Rep by its Partner- Sri G. Mukesh, S/o G. Kishan Rao, aged - 47 yearc, occ- Business, Ri./o. Plot No. 151, Dhanalaxmi Housing Society, Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad 500026, Telangana.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lndustries and Commerce Department, Dr.B. R Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Director of Mines And Geology, HYDERABAD.

¶13

The Deputy Director of Mines And Geology, WARANGAL, Telangana State.

¶14

The Assistant Director of Mines And Geology, KARIMNAGAR, Telangana State.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in blocking the lD Nos. 2011080074,2011110102, and 2011110'103 in respect of the leased areas of the Petitioner over an extents of 3.20 hect, 3.81 hect, and 1.117 hect in Sy.No. 1 160 of Gattubuthkur Village of Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District during the pendency of lhe Revision Applications daled 24-05-2024 as illegal arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice aM violative of Article 14 and 21 ot Constitution of lndia and also declare the action of Respondents in not issuing the dispatch permits as illegal arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to issue dispatch^permits to the Petitioners by unblocking the lD numbers lD Nos. 2O11O8OO74,201'11'1O102, and 2011110103 for the granite blocks to be dispatched from the leased areas of the Petitioner.

¶17

IANO:1OF2 024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in th.e affidavit fired n support of the writ p"iitiJn, the High cou.t mlv oe preaseo to direct the Respondents to_ issue dispatch permiti to the petition"ri^-oy unbrocking the rD numbers rD Nos. 2011080074, 2011110102, 2011110103 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRI p. GlRl KRISHNA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR MINES & GEOLOGY / SRI MOHD. IMRAN KHAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA WRIT PETITION NO.34765 OF 2024

¶24

Mr, P. Giri Krishna, leamed counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Mr. Mohd. lmran Khan, the leamed Additional Advocate General^for the^respondents

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The Court passed several orders yestcrday i.e,, on 11.L2.2024^rn writ petitions involving similar fact situations.

¶28

The petitioner has hled a Revision under Rule 35-A oi The^Telangana Minor Mineral concession Rules,^1966, againsL^{impositionol pcnaltr'} including normal seigniorage fees by the Authorities^{on 28.12.2022.}

¶29

The Revision was hled on 20 .O5.2O24^.

¶30

After hearing learned counsel appearing lor lhe^{pcl,itionerand the} Iearned Additional Advocate General appearing^for the^{respondents, this} Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ^petition on^{similarlines as was} done in the writ petitions ordered on^L1.I2.2O24.

¶31

W.P.No.34765 of 2024, along with all connected^{applications,is} accordingly disposed of with a direction^{on the respondent No. I to dispose} of the Revision by O1.O2.2O25.

¶32

The respondents shall issue dispatch^{permits by 14.12.2O2asubject} to the petitioner depositing 5O% of^{the total amount imposed i'e,} Rs. 11,7O,51O/-. The petitioner shall^{depositthis amounlby 21 l'2.2O24}

¶33

¶34

¶35

Intcrrrn o-de rs, it any, shall sland vacated There shall be no order

¶36

as to cos [s

¶37

//rRUE copy//^{assi3iilvYJSY$tffi}

¶38

ro,

¶39

sEcrlor{oFFtcER

¶40

The^principar Secretarv rnrir rqrriac ,^i /^^---

¶41

i g;3ffitn^{,+f#nH:ir*i:m,mrffi} ffi;;""

¶42

ii*f"ffi ;:#l?""JTr,ffi^{'.'+AitsTt%fl lft,LT",.3Hishco,,.trorthesrate}

¶43

, +xi:r?:;j:arioreovocRrE GENERAL, Hish court for the state of

¶44

Two CD Coiies

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:12112,t2024

ORDER

WP.No.34765 of 2024-&

¶51

.I
of E L 4 ',; 9. c.\ "7-' 4>" * ,.S. o l
cV )
- ,C,
,/],
j H ,t

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings 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

Scion Foods and Feeds Pvt. Limited, Vs Punjab National Bank Bank

Shakamuri Sravan Kumar Vs Shakamuri Haritha

Mohammed Irfan Vs The Union of India

Ellaiah Maddi Vs The Union of India

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , Vs Union of India

Sri R. Devender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana