HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10809 of 2005 DATE: 11.06.2014 Between:
M/s Maruthi Granites, Guntur Rep. by its Proprietor ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department, Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10809 of 2005 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease over an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in Sy.No.119/P of Rajupalem Laxmipuram (R.L.Puram) village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, for a period of two years. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal vide his report dated 19.06.2002 issued a no objection certificate for granting quarry lease over an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in Sy.No.119/P of R.L. Puram village for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner. It was classified as patta land and the petitioner furnished pattadar documents also. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, recommended quarry lease in favour of the petitioner and the Director of Mines and Geology passed an order dated 18.06.2003 granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, for a period of 20 years subject to the result of OS No.10 of 2001 pending on the file of the District Judge, Ongole. Initially, the District Collector stayed the no objection certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, but the same was vacated later on. The suit OS No.10 of 2001 filed by the 4th respondent was represented by her General Power of Attorney-Dr.P.Anand of Ongole. In the suit, IA No.968 of 2001 was filed seeking temporary injunction and the same was dismissed on 13.06.2002. Against the said order, CMA No.1758 of 2002 was filed and the same was dismissed for default by this Court on 26.08.2002. Later on, CMA No.1758 of 2002 was disposed of on 12.09.2002 upholding the order of the trial Court. The suit was directed to be disposed of within a period of six months.
3. The Director of Mines and Geology, issued proceedings dated 18.06.2003 granting quarry lease in favour of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.2.05 in Sy.No.119/P of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, for a period of 20 years. The Director of Mines and Geology, vide Memo No.22586/R3(2)/2002 dated 21.04.2005 directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, to execute quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole vide proceedings dated 23.04.2005 executed quarry lease on 23.04.2005 and issued a work memo.
4. It appears after dismissal of the suit on 19.04.2005, the 4th respondent through her General Power of Attorney, submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on which representation, an endorsement was made by the Hon’ble Minister staying the proceedings dated 18.06.2003 of the Director of Mines and Geology and the proceedings of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology dated 23.04.2005. The action of submitting a representation by the 4th respondent and entertaining the same by the 1st respondent with orders of stay of proceedings dated 18.06.2003 and 23.04.2005, are challenged in the present writ petition.
5. This Court by order dated 29.04.2005 granted interim suspension of the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, who as a consequence of endorsement made on the representation, passed orders on 27.04.2005 and 28.05.2005 directing the petitioner to stop quarry operations. Till today, the 4th respondent has not filed any counter or any application seeking vacation of the said order of suspension.
6. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit tracing out the events leading to filing of the representation by the 4th respondent and stated that the said representation was taken as a revision and the same is pending before the Revisional Authority. He also stated that the 4th respondent is not an applicant for the grant of quarry lease in the subject area.
7. The above facts disclose that the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad issued proceedings dated 18.06.2003 granting quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 2.05 acres in Sy.No.119/P of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam district, for a period of 20 years in favour of the petitioner, subject to the result of OS No.10 of 2001 filed by the 4th respondent before the District Judge, Ongole. He also issued orders on 21.04.2005 directing the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole to execute the quarry lease deed, but after ascertaining the dismissal of OS No.10 of 2001 from the Government Pleader, Ongole. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology executed quarry lease on 23.04.2005 and issued work orders on the same day. The petitioner has been continuing the quarry operations after dismissal of the suit OS No.10 of 2001. The 4th respondent, who has no locus standi in respect of the leased area, filed a representation before the 1st respondent and the proceedings of the Director and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology were stayed and so far no notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of those proceedings. By virtue of interim suspension granted by this Court, the petitioner has been continuing quarry operations. The Rules prescribed, particularly, procedure for filing revision before the competent authority, was not followed by the 4th respondent. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent entertained the representation as if it is a revision petition and passed orders. The petitioner is having valid lease and his right cannot be interdicted by a third party, who has no locus standi in the proceedings, as the 3rd respondent stated that he is not an applicant for grant of quarry lease in the subject area.
8. In the circumstances, the improper representation filed by the 1st respondent before the 1st respondent and the consequential orders passed by the 1st respondent or respondents 1 to 3 are unsustainable in law and are accordingly quashed.
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 11.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9 WRIT PETITION No.10809 of 2005 Date: 11.06.2014 BSS