Partly allowed

Appannapally Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/35781/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions seeking dispatch permits and challenging a demand notice under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It directed the Principal Secretary to dispose of the pending revision by 31.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 to dispose pending revision by 31.03.2025; petitioner to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs; respondents to issue dispatch permits subject to payment.

Appannapally Venkat Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD^-""" (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAYTHE TWENTIETH DAY,OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUh_*"

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT P ETITTON NO: 35781 0 F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Appannapally Venkat Reddy, S/o.Ananth Reddy Aged 45 years Occu il,:'il:ffi8.fl:,..^{H No 2-42' t'irumaragilVirrast"'N/;;ijar} Hunwada Dist

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanqana. Re.presented by its principal Secretary (I,4ines), rndustries and Conimerce oepjrtment ai $ili;liril iyoerabad s00004

¶12

2 The Director of l\4ines and Geology, H.No. 5-9_22. Flat No. 203 and 2O4,2nd !i"."d,^{gr,Hom e sa ro va r eraza,s-fia p u.,,ia o i, ;;i ;Jilfr I} na^{r, H yd era ba d}

¶13

.) The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Asst. Director of l\rlines and Geology, tVahabubnagar, Dist. I\4ahabubnagar

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rir"o irr"r"iin, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ. order or oirection mir--^-pti.rrrrry one in the nature ot WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring tfr" ".ti"r'"iihe Respondent No..t in nor disposing the Revision petirion o"tua. oi:lllidzi t,tea by the writ petitioner against the Demand Notice No.4220 rcuzors a,Jtf,z.'zlnotzozqissued by the 4th respondent and not issuinq the dispatch p"rrit. tolf.," petitioner pending Revision ::lit]:._,:_rrbitrary,^{i,egatlnd unconstitutionar'""i} "iorutir"^{of principtesof natural} JUStrce and consequentry direct the Respondent t to.+ to i.rr" ii.puirr, p"rrii.'to the petitioner in the interests of justice

¶17

lA NO:1 oF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section.1.51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support_oflhe petition, tir""High'i"rn may be preased to direct the Respondent No.4 to issue dispatch permits"to ihe petitioner to carry out the

¶19

quarrying operations^{in respect of the lease area over an extent of 3 410 Hectors} in Sy.No.123 of^{Baswapui Village,Deverkadratt'4andal' lVahabubnagarDistrict} p"nding disposal of^{the writ petition in the interests of justice}

¶20

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRl.T V RAMANA RAO}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondents: SRI G' ANANTHSEN REDDY GP FOR MINES} AND GEOLOGY

¶22

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶24

tf I

¶25

I I i i I l i I I I

¶26

WRIT PETITIoN NO.35781 oF 2024

¶27

Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Mr. G.Ananthsen Reddy, learned Government pleader for Mines and Geologr appcanng for the respondents.

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondents for issuing dispatch permits pending a revision hled by rhe petitioner under Rule 35-A of The Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

¶31

The responclent No.4 issued a Demand Notice datcd 21.1O.2024 imposing seigniorage fee + penahy amounting to Rs.21,23,66,436/- on account of alleged illegal mining done by the petltioner

¶32

The petitioner complains that the petitioner is not liabre to pay any scigniorage fec or penalty since the seigniorage fee was already deducted from the petitioner's bills. It is arso the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not carry out any quarry operations outside the quarry lease area.

¶33

This Court is also informed that the revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 3S-A of The Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rulcs, 1966, is pending before the authorities since 07.r1.2024

t, l,t

I i I I

The pt:titione"r essentially^{pral's for adirectiononthe} rcsponclents to issuc clispatch^{permitsduringthe pendencyof the} revlsl()n

¶38

Considering thc submissions^{made on behalf of the parties} :rncl thc ord,:rs passed b1- this^{Court in similar circamstances,} W.P.No.35781 of 2024 is disposed^{of directingthe respondent No' 1} lo dispose of the revision filed^{by the petitionerby 31.03.2025 The} pelitioner shall depostt an amount^{ofRs.50,O0,OOO/- by} 24 . \2.2024 :rncl the respondents^{shall issue d ispatch permits, as} prayed for, subject to payment by^{the petitioner.}

¶39

Intcrrnl orclers, if any, shall stand^{vacatedand all connected} applications arc disposed of.^{'lhere shall be no order- as to costs.}

¶40

SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary ( N/i.le^s), lndustries and Commerce Department at Secretariat. Hyderabad 5OO00d

¶45

2 The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad.

¶46

The Asst. Director of A,4ines and Geology, Mahabubnagar, Dist. fVlahabubnagar-

¶47

4 One CC to SRI. T V RAIVANA RAO Advocate tOpUCl

¶48

5 Two CCs to cp FOR IVINES AND GEOLOGY ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶49

o Two CD Copies I^5 GJP 1,.'

¶50

CC TODAY

¶51

i I I i l ! Ii I I t, ; I I I i' , 1 I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212024

ORDER

--1=.
g-r A l'8' c
lcq 21 S't ttt\ Ct
,L)
+
',k
ai-. ' ,/'

¶56

WP.No.35781^{of 2024}

¶57

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

f
L7- h
s/rt /zt/

Appannapally Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appannapally Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Sarojana Vs SangalaSundaraiah (died)

Kodati Manemma Vs Ramakistaiah (died)

Bhoopathi Reddy Rondla Vs The Union of India

M/s Skr Constructions Vs Telangana Urban Finance Infrastructure

Puduri Rajesh @ Rajesham Vs Union of India

S.D. Ejaz Vs The State of Telangana