Disposed

M/s. Chintamani Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jan 2025WP/37139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A construction firm challenged the rejection of its 2015 mining revision petition, alleging no hearing notice was served despite the revision being kept pending since 2015. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh decision within four weeks after notice, noting the Form-J address but granting indulgence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.11.2024 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh order within four weeks after notice to petitioner.

M/s. Chintamani Constructions Vs The State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOO KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37139 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Chintamani Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Challa Jayachander Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age 56^years, Rl/o.H.No.1-128, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad 500097, Telangana state'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary-Cum- Revision Authority, (Mines and Geology) lndustries and Commerce (Mines-l) Department, Govemment of Telangana Dr. Ambedkar Secretariat. Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶12

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

¶13

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hanumakonda, (previously Assistant Director of Mines and Geology( Vigilance), Mahabubabad, Govemment of relangana

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS stating that the impugned revision order vide Memo No.5321iM.l(2y2015, dt.08.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 is arbitrary, illegal, unreasoned, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of lndia and violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently seeking the direction to the Respondent No.1 authority to^give reasonable opportunity to present the documentary evidence in support of my case by setting aside the impugned revision order dt.08.l1.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 authority in the interest of^justice

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to} suspend the^{impugnedrevision order vide MemoNo.5321/M1(2)12015.,} d1.8.11.2O24^passed by the^{Respondent No.1, pending disposalof the writ} petition in the interest of^justice

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl. GOURIDEVI KRISHNAIAH}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR MINESAND GEOLOGY}

¶20

The Court made^{the l'ollowing:ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶22

WRIT PETITION N^{o.37139 0F 2024}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned Senior^{Counsel appearingfor Sri G'} Krishnaiah, learned^{Counselfor thepetitioner,learned} Government Pleader^{for Mines & Geolory appearing on behalf of} respondent Nos. 1^{to 3, and with the consent of learnedCounsel} appearing for the^{parties,the Writ Petition is taken up for} hearing and disposal^{at the stage of admission'}

¶25

The case of the^{petitioner, in brief, is that aggrieved by the} proceedings dated 06.03.2012,^{it hadsubmittedan} Appeat/Revision under^{Rule 35-A of the Telangana State Minor} Mineral Concession^{Rules, 1966 and the said revision preferred} is pending, since JulY,^2015.

¶26

Petitioner further^{contendsthat while the said revision} rvas pending althrough^{this period, all of asuddenthe} authorities have^{pdssedan order on O8'11'2024 rejectedthe} revision petition.

¶27

Petitioner further contends^{that though the impugned} order records that^{despitethe petitioner being provided with} several opportunities to^{attend hearing,he having failed to} attendthchearingandassuchthepetitioneriSnotinterested

¶28

¶29

to pursue the revision, no notices of revision hearing was served on him and, as such, the petitioner could not appear before the authority to substantiate his claim of not being liable to pay any seigniorage fee and penalty on various materials used by him in the construction.

¶30

Petitioner further contends that if only this Court were to show indutgence by setting aside the impugned order and remanding back to the authority directing the authority to grant an opportunity ro the petitioner, the petitioner would appear before the authority to substantiate his claim in the revision petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of rc.spondents submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunit5z to appear before the revision authorit5r by sending notrccs to thc address mentioned in Form_J and thus it is not open for the petitioner to allege of not being issued with any notice and the order being passed in violation of natural justice.

¶32

Learn<:d Government pleader further submits that notwithstanding the filing of the appeal/revision by the petitioner on 2O.O7.2015, rhe authorities have also granted an opportunity ro the petitioner under One Time Settlement -(OTS)

¶33

¶34

) )

¶35

in the year 2O16 which^{the petitioner failed to avail and as such} it is not open for the^{petitioner now to claim the respondent} authorities having^{passed the impugned orderwithout issuing} notice to the^petitioner.

¶36

I have taken note ofthe^{respective contentionsurged.}

¶37

Though the petitioner^{had claimednot beingissued with} any notice of hearing^{of the revision petition, it is to be noted} that the^petitioner in^{the application seeking revision filed in} Form J had mentioned the^{address for service of noticeas} Gokul Nagar, Wadepally,^{WarangalDistrict and thus, it is not} open for the^{petitionernow to claim of he not being served with} the notice or the order^{having not been passed in violation of} natural^justice.

¶38

However, taking^{note of the fact that the Revision was} kept pending since^{2O15and as the petitioneris now agreeable} to appear before the^{authorityof any date as may be hxed by} this Court to substantiate^{his claim of not being liable to pay} seigniorage fee and the^{penalty in respect of material used by} him in the construction, this^{Court is of the view that the} petitioner can be given one more^{opportunity to substantiate his} claim, by setting aside the^{impugned order dated O8.ll'2O24} and directing the respondent^{authorities to pass an order in a}

¶39

¶40

time bound manner, after issuing notice of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

1 1. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent authorit5r to pass an order afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the affidavit hled in support of the present Writ Petition.

¶42

It is made clear that since the amounts being ciaimed as due relate tc the period 2OO9 to 2Oi 1, this Court is of the view the l"t respondent authoriqr is to be directed to complete the process of issuing fresh notice to the petitioner and passing of an order afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶43

Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. , --l SD/-N. S HARI ASSTSTANT^REG TRAR

¶45

¶46

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 The Principal Secretary-Cum-^{RevisionAuthority'(Mines and Geology)} rntuitiiei bno'3ommerce^{( rvilnei-t) oepartmen['.Governmentof Telangana} bi. X*iiJori;^{sJctetjriat. SeCretaiiat tiuildings'} .HYderabad'^Telangana'

¶49

2 in" iii'i"ii"'li^{Mi;;;;"d6i6r"st'G"*rnnientoi relansana' Mv Home} z-no rroot,^{S aiidbaa,Hvd era bad' Telangana'}

¶50

i'ii""rir"cJ.i,r "i,

¶51

GtI

¶52

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geologv, Hanumakonda. (oreviouslv- - ' Assistant Director of Mines and Geology( Vlgihnce), l,lafraOu'niOia,Government of Telanqana

¶53

ONE CC tO SRI. GOTJRIDEVI KRISHNAIAH, AdVOCAtE TOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MTNES AND GEOLOGy ,High Oiurt foitfre State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶54

Two CD Copies

BM BS

cJ.&

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210112025

1 rrc S14r 6
2 / FtB 2025 a
i_)EspATctl sO

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.37139 of 2024

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶63

WITHOUT COISTS

¶64

0
K^d

M/s. Chintamani Constructions v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Chintamani Constructions 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

Iqballunisa Memorial Trust, Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

D.Kushal Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

T. Bhupal Reddy, Warangal Dist and Another Vs State of Telangana., Hyd and 9 Others

S. Lachi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

P. Bhagyalakshmi Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works Vs The Union of India