HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9620 OF 2008 DATED 3rd December, 2014.
BETWEEN M/s. Royal Touch Granites Limited, Rep. by its Prop. M.Ganesh, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department , Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. .
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9620 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner states that it was granted quarry lease for black granite in Sy.No.183 of Pathadaga village o f Kalikiri Mandal in Chittoor District over an extent of 1.417 hectors by proceedings of the second respondent dated 31.07.2003 for a period of 20 years. However quarry operations could not be undertaken as the revision petition was pending before the Government. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2552 of 2004 and in view of the orders passed by this Court therein, the petitioner commenced quarry operations from April, 2005 onwards. The second respondent also issued proceedings dated 31.3.2005 extending the lease for the period which was lost in the litigation. While so, respondents 4 and 5 started interfering with the quarry operations of the petitioner on the ground that the land in an extent of 433.91 acres in Sy.No.183 was proposed for establishment of Training Centre for Railway Protection Force. It appears that the fourth respondent addressed a letter to the third respondent to cancel the lease granted to the petitioner on the ground that the said land is required for establishment of Training Centre for Railway Protection Force. The third respondent accordingly addressed a letter to the second respondent for determination of the quarry lease granted to the petitioner. However, no orders have been passed thereon. Challenging interference by respondents 4 and 5 with the quarry operations, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
Even after six years, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. However, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition in view of long pendency of the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, respondents 4 and 5 are directed not to interfere with the quarry operations of the petitioner if the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is subsisting and is not cancelled.
The Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 3rd December, 2014. Msnrx