Dismissed¶36

Mokalla Ramesh v. Union of India

Telangana HC2 Dec 2025WP/17748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Writ Petition No. 17748 of 2013, decided 02.12.2025, N.V. Shravan Kumar, J. — Article 226 writ of mandamus; iron-ore mining lease application dt.7-10-2009; compartment numbers 5 and 3; Linobhanagar village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District; Union of India, Ministry of Mines; State of Andhra Pradesh mines authorities; Section 151 CPC petition; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; cause does not survive; no representation/appearance for petitioner; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous, pending miscellaneous applications (if any) closed, no order as to costs. ¶36

Mokalla Ramesh Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous, pending miscellaneous applications (if any) closed, no order as to costs.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not granting the iron-ore mining lease in compartment numbers 5 and 3 (admeasuring approximately 15-20 hectares) in Linobhanagar village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District was unlawful, warranting a writ of Mandamus directing them to process the petitioner's iron-ore mining lease application dated 07-10-2009 in accordance with law.

¶18

Court's answer

Recording the respondents' submission and viewing that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, were ordered to stand closed.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mokalla Ramesh v. Union of India, Ministry of Mines and others — High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.; Writ Petition No. 17748 of 2013, order dated 02.12.2025. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a writ of Mandamus declaring illegal the action of the respondents (Union of India, Ministry of Mines; State of Andhra Pradesh — Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department; Director of Mines and Geology; Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kothagudem) in not granting an iron-ore mining lease in compartment numbers 5 and 3, to an extent of 15-20 hectares, in Linobhanagar village, Bayyaram Mandal, Khammam District, and consequential direction to process the petitioner's iron-ore mining lease application dated 7-10-2009 in accordance with law; a petition under Section 151 CPC sought the same direction pending disposal of the writ petition. When the matter was taken up on 02.12.2025, none appeared for the petitioner, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Advocate General Office and Sri K. Shantan Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for further adjudication. Recording the submission, and in view of the non-survival of the cause and the absence of representation for the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, were ordered to stand closed; no order was made as to costs.

¶1

-- ^'t

¶2

I^32ss I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF DECEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

:1 3

Between:

r^j'

Mokalla Ramesh, C/o. Vasudeva^{Rao, Aged about 28 yeqrs, Occ:un-} empioyee, Ciiie'Koya, R/o^{H.No.4-2-381,Srinagar Colony, 1st Lane, Opp} Rotary Nagar, Khamriram^{City, KhammamDistrict.}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia, rep by^{its Secretary,Mines, Ministry of Mines, Govt-of lndia,} New Delhi.

¶14

The State of Andhra^Pradesh, rep by its Secretary,^{lndustriesandCommerce} (M. I ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The State of Andhra^Pradesh, reo bv The Director of^{Minesand Geology'} Govt. of A.P., lndustries^and Cbmrirerce^(M.lll) Department,^Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The state of Andhra^{Pradesh, rep by The Asst. Directorof Mines and} Geology, Kothagudem,^{Khammam District}

¶17

. ...RESPONDENTS

¶18

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in^the circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order^{or direction more particutarlyone in} the nature of Writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents not} granting tron-ore mining lease in compartment^{numbers 5 and 3 to an extent of} 15-20 hectors in Linobhanagar^{village, Bayyaram Mandal, KhammamDistrict, in} favour of the^petitioner consequentially^{direct the respondentsto process} petitioner iron-ore mining lease application^{dt.7-10-2009,in accordance with law.}

¶19

¶20

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 resp,rndents^{to process the petitionerlron-ore mining lease application} dt.7-10-2009 tr> an^{extent of 15-26 hectors in compartment numbers 5 and 3 in} Linobhanagar village,^{Bayyaram Mandal, KhammamDistrict, in accordancewith} law,^pending disposal^{of the writ petition.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M.VENKATA RAMA RAO}

¶22

counsel for the Respondents:^{olo. ADDL. ADVOCATEGENERAL &} SRI K.SHANTAN^{RAO, AGP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY}

¶23

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶25

HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.LZ48 qf 2Q13

¶27

DATE OF ORDER:02.12.2025

Between:

Sri. Mokalla Ramesh

...Petitioner

AND

Union of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and three others.

¶33

.Respondents

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, none appearecl for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General Office and Sri.K.Shantan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondents submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.

¶36

Recording the above submission and in view of the fact that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and that there is no representation on behalf of petitioner, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶37