Disposed

Madineni Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025WP/1689/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry operator challenged non-consideration of its delayed revision application against a demand notice, which blocked transit permits. The court directed the mines authorities to decide the revision application in accordance with law within six weeks without expressing opinion on delay condonation or merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to dispose of the revision application under Rule 35A within six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner; no order as to costs.

Madineni Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

,N THE HIGH COURT FO

¶3

o F rELAN GANA ;;,^j i:,ff,$i;lt*

¶4

wEDNEs

¶5

JA N uA R y hY6 t-tffi ;##

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

Between:

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VIN

¶9

OD KUIT4AR

¶10

IT PE ON No;1 689 o F 2025

¶11

ffi Slir:i".#,,1f iBi""_..fr lLT.lA%?r,i,J,ij;,g:riJ"",,,i:Ji3i,f

BB!,

AND

,..PET,TIONER

";ff l;.,':,i:l:g:?,%i,,iia"'I,[].**rary,rndustries&

¶16

Commerce

¶17

The Director of Mines ar Geology' Government of relang ana, Hyderabad

¶18

3 The Depury oirector or J es and Geology' Hyderabad

¶19

The Assistant oir""to, otl ' Mines and Geology, Suryapet

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

^,-^..^{1",,,,on under Article226 of lhe Constitutior} crrcumstances stated in ,r,"-"r,.",,,,"r,::"::l1uo?..of India praying that in the .qr.e_aseo^{to issue writ, on} the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be wRlr oF ,oionilal'i"j^or^{direction more particurarrv} "rJ^i.",n"';;;L j^{isoo sins,n.} iil,,,i#::1',ff , [: ;;H: ;:,l.o i,).)li i : 5*n".1oe 1, t r,,r" .," ;; ;,,", r h e D e m a n d N o r ce N o. 42 2 vo un s i n n ri r' ii i r, :;r ;;- ::r :^r:; llil; the dispatch permits Btocking the quany ,"*Jio]'ruroing Revision Apptication as arbitrary, illegar, unjust and unconstitutiona r anJ in vioration of principres of Natural Justice and contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and T.S. Minor fraineraiConl"srio, Rules, .1g66.

¶22

IA NO: 10F 202s

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, inu uign court may be preased to direct the respondent No.4 to issue the transit permits to the petitioner to carry out the quarry operations, pending disposar of the writ petition.

¶24

¶25

SMT.^{N. SHOBA} Gounsel^{for the Petitioner:} nts:^{GPFOR MINES & GEOLOGY} Counsel^{for the ResPonde} The^{Court madethe fotlowing: ORDER}

¶26

I- I I

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD XUMAR

¶28

ORDE R:

¶29

W.p.No.I689 of 2O2S

¶30

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geologz appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶31

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that aggrieved by the Demand Notice, dt. 12 .o7 .2022, initially he had preferred an appeal under Rule 35 of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ,the RulesJ on 28.07.2022; that the said appeal having been disposed of uide order dt.20.01.2023 directing the petitioner to file a revision, he had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a revision application under Rule 35A Rules on 15.06.2023; that as the revision was filed with delay, he had submitted application seeking for condonation of the said delay in preferring the said revision application; and that in spite of more than 172 years having passed by, the said revision application has not been considered/disposed of by the respondents-authorities till date, as a result of which, the^{petitioner is unable to obtain necessary} permissions for undertaking transportation^{of mineral mined by it,}

¶32

¶33

¶34

which action^{of the respondents-authorities itis contended as} highiY^{illegal and arbitrary'}

¶35

Per contra,learned^{Government Pleader appearing on behalf} of the^{respondents,while admitting to the fact of the petitioner} having submitted^{a revision application on 75'06'2023'would} contend^{that the said appiication for revisionhas beenpreferred} with delay^{i.e., beyondthe period of 90 days; and that if this Court} were to^{grant eight(O8) weekstime, the authorities wouldconsider} the said revision^{application submitted by the petitioner' including} as to whether^{sufficientcause has been shownfor filing the said} revision beyond the^{time prescribedunderRule 35A of the Rules'}

¶36

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶37

As the petitioner contends that aggrieved by the demand notice, dt. 1 2 .o7 .2022, he had initially filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Act on ZtI.OZ.ZOZZ and the said appeal having been disposed ol uide ordert dt.2o.o r.2023 directing the petitioner to hle a revision, pr."r..rt' to which he having filed a revision on 15.06.2023 with delay and having sought for condoning the said delay in preferring the revision apprication, and the said revision application is pending consideration even after lapse of lyt years, the respondents_authorities uo ug n'ht to ha yv e CO n t co sidered the same \r,ithin areasonabre ,r-".'""o

However, taking note of the fact that the said revision application is pending consideration for more than 1 yz years, without expressing any opinion either as to whether sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the said revision application within the time prescribed under the rules or merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the respondents_ authorities are to be directed to dispose of the aforesaid revision application in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and comrnunicate its decision to the petitioner.

¶43

7 Subject to the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending 1n these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI STRAR

¶47

ECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

'1 . The Secretary, lndustries and Commerce Department, The State of

¶50

. r etangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶51

1. The Director of Mines an.d Geology, Govemment of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶52

The Deputy Director of Mines and-Geoloqv, Hvderabad^"

¶53

I he Assistant Director of Mines and Geolcjgy, Suryapet

¶54

One CC to SRt N. SHOBA. Advocate tOputi^{- -} '

¶55

Two CCs to Gp FOR MINES & cEOLbcy, tiign Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶56

7 . Two CD Copies

¶57

BN/BN

a,t,

{

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2210112025

ORDER

1 t{6 STA I4.
o
O OE FEts ?u5 a

t)F I (l

¶65

WP.No.1689^{of 2025}

¶66

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶67

,9 @)cn" el ,W

Madineni Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madineni Srinivas 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

Aggu Ashanna, Adilabad Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Land Aquisition., Hyderabad and 7 Others

Mrs. Gowri Priyadarshini Sundeep Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Biru Surender Reddy Vs Ashwini Tanaji Wakhde, lAS

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry,tribal Labour Contract Co-Op Society Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

Kura Anil Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Cheruku Kondal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana