Disposed

Sri.Y. Sharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2025WP/30348/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking directions to issue a grant order and execute a quarry lease deed over 4.99 hectares. Following an earlier similar order, the court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's case and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's case and pass orders strictly in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks, and communicate them.

Sri.Y. Sharath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[^32ss ]

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30348 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri.Y. Sharath Reddy, S/o.Sri Y.Yadagiri Reddy Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, RJo. H.No.B-55/6, Pragathi Homes, Rajendra Nagar l\rlandal, Hydershahkote, Hyderabad. 500091.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

2 The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

The Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology. Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶15

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 order, direction or Writ more particularly, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus. i. Declaring the inaction of the Respondents, more specifically the Respondent No. 2, in issuing the Grant Order and executing the Quarry Lease Deed over an extent of 4.99 hectares in Survey no.174 of Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District in favour of Petitioner, despite compliance of all statutory and procedural requirements as illegal, arbitrary, and in gross violation of Article^'14, Article 19(1Xg) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and ii. Consequently, direct Respondent no.2 to issue a Grant Order and execute the

¶18

Quarry Lease Deerl in favour of Petitioner over an extent of 4.99 hectaresⁱⁿ Survey no.174 of Yenkathala Village, Mominpet lvlandal, Vikaratrad District.

¶19

lA NO: 1 F 2025

¶20

Petition unde' Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirounrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent r,o.2 to forthwith issue a Grant Order ancl e>lecute the Quarry Lease Deed in favour of Petitioner over an extent of 4.99 he'ctares in Survey no.174 of Yenkathrrla Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the presernt writ.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.L.VAN|

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: ASST. GP FOR MINES AND GEC)LOGY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

(

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3O34a of 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Hearr'l learnecl counsel for thc pctitioncr and lcarned Assistant Covernment Pleader for Mincs an,J Geology appearing for rcspondent Nos.1 to 1. With their conscnt, this n,rit petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stagc itself.

¶27

This h,rit petition is filecl seeking the following prayer:-

¶28

"i) to declnre tlw itutction of the Respondents, more specifcnlly tltt Respondent No.2, in issrtirtg the Grnnt Order and exeuting tht: Quarry^{lzase Deed ottr on extenl of 4.99 hectares in SunteV no.774of} Yenkathala Villnge, Monfiryet Mnndnl, Viknrahnd District, in fnttour of Petitioner daspite conrylinnce oJ all sttttutory find procedural requirements ns illegal, trbitrary nnd in gross^piolntiott of Article 14, Article 79('l)(g) and 2-l of tle Constitution of lndia and ii) Consequently tlirect Rcspondent no,Z to issue n Grant Order attLl exeatte the Qunrry kasc Daed in fat our of Petitioner ot,er an extent of 4.99 htctares in Suntey no.174 of Yenkathnln Village, Montinpet Mnndnl, V iknrabnd D i s t ric t."

¶29

'foclay when thc matter has bccn takcn up for hearing, learnccl counscl

¶30

for the petitioner submits tliat in similar circumstance this Court in

¶31

W.I'.No.26947 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025, passed the following order:-

¶32

"5. [n uieu of the sttbtrtissiort nutde lty lenrnerl counsel tppcnring ott eitlrcr side, ruithout expressiry arry opinion on the merits of the case nnd in uieu of tlrc fact tlutt tlrc petitiouer's case is under process, this Cottrt deems it npproprinte lo dispostz o.f tlu rurit petition directing tlrc responLlcnt No.2 to cotrsidcr tlrc petitioner's cnse and pass orders sticthl in accort utce ruitlt hro, ns expcditiously as possible, prefernbly toithin n period of four (04) ruaeks front tlrc dntc of receipt of copy of this order and conurutnicntc tlrc sanrc lo tlu petitioner."

¶33

Learncd counsel for thc petitioncr further pray this Court to pass

¶34

sinrilar orders as passed in W.P.No.26947 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025

¶35

¶36

Learrrerl Assistant Government Pleader appearing fo:' respondents did not dispuh: th,: same, hon'ever, pray this Cout to grant eiglrt (08) rveeks tirnc to the responrlerrt authorities for passing orders.

¶37

Recordrrrg thc submissions rnade b1' the lcarnt-'rl cotrnscl appearing on <'itl-rcr siclt' ar !l in terrlls of orclcrs passecl itt W.l'.Nt,.26947 of 2t)25 datccl 12.09.20?5, tlris writ pctition is disposed of directine tlre respondcnt No.2 to considcr tlrt: l ctitioner's casc and pass orders strictlr. i:r acr:orclance with law, as expeditiou:;lv as possible, preferably, u,ithin a perii,d c,f eight (08) weeks from the datc of reccipt of copy of this or:cler ancl comurrrnicate thc same to thc petitioncr. It ir; rnadc clcar that this Court has not exprcsset{ anv op.rir-tion on thc rnerits of thc i:ase, it is for the responclent authorities tr-, pa:;s ordcrs strictly in accordancc' w itlr lalv

¶38

Accorcl ing[1,, this writ petition 1S disposei: c,f. Misccllancous applications, ii any pentling, shall stand closcd, No ord(,r as, to costs

¶39

SDi-B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR /' //TRUE coPY// g SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Principal^:Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Building, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶42

The Director, l)epartment of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana, 2nd Floor, My Home Sarovar Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶43

The Deputy D rector, Department of lVlines and Geology. Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶44

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Tandur lVandal, Vikarabad District

¶45

One CC to Ms.L.VAN|, Advocate. IOPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Cor"rrt for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copiers. w BSK

HIGH COURI-

DATED:1 311(t12025

ORDER

HE SIr'
( {s
2 5 c[T 21ffi
<br>

¶52

WP.No.30348r of 2025

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC)STS

¶54

Sri.Y. Sharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Y. Sharath Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Smoky Tales Cafe and Grill Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) Vs The State of Telangana

Singa Reddy Joseph Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mekala Nagamani, Vs The State of Telangana

Gadaparthi Venkateshwarlu @ Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Yasmeen Vs The State Of Telangana