N. SRINATH REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2022-3-52
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 28,2022

N. Srinath Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of 3.000 Hectares of land in Sy.No.242 of Yerrasanipalli Village and Sy.No.697 of Thamballapalli Village, Thamballapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, for a period of 20 years from 3/10/2011 to 2/10/2031. The said lease had been determined by an order of the 2nd respondent dtd. 31/7/2018 in proceedings No.1410/RS-1/2018. Aggrieved by the said order, a Revision was filed before the 1st respondent under Rule 35-A of the A.P.Minior Mineral Concession Rules 1966. This Revision was allowed by the 1st respondent by an order dtd. 20/1/2020 vide Memo No.10527/M.1(1)/2018-3. The Revisional Authority, while setting aside the determination orders had made the said order subject to payment of Rs.4,28,450.00 towards seignorage fee and Rs.17,13,800.00towards penalty. Aggrieved by the said condition imposed on the petitioner and aggrieved by the fact that the said order does not contain any reasons, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.7183 of 2020. This Court by an order dtd. 13/5/2020 had granted stay of operation of the impugned proceedings on deposit of the seignorage fee of Rs.4,28,450.00. The petitioner submits that the said order has been complied with.
(2.) Subsequently, the petitioner had sought to continue quarry operations and had applied for transit permits for transportation of the quarried material. However, the respondents were not permitting the petitioner to take up quarry operations in the said mining area. Aggrieved by the said steps taken by the respondents to stop the petitioner from carrying on mining activities, the petitioner had approached this Court by way ofW.P.No.5897 of 2021.
(3.) Sri P. Veera Reddy learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms.Sodum Anvesha learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent, in W.P.No.7813 of 2020, after having set aside the determination order could not have made the said order subject to payment of further money by the petitioner. He further submits that no reasons are given as to why such a condition has been imposed on the petitioner. He would submit that such an imposition without even giving any reasons, is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.