Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1368 (AP)

N. Jagga Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2014-11-11

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

body2014
ORDER A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 2. One D. Kumara Swamy was holding quarry lease for colour granite in survey No. 180 of Mannempalli Village, Thimmapur Karimnagar District. The fourth respondent filed an application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 4 hectors in the same survey number for a period of 20 years. The said application was received by the third respondent on 14.02.2007. The third respondent called the fourth respondent to attend the inspection and survey on 11.05.2007 and 10.03.2008, but the fourth respondent did not turn up inspite of two chances given to him. In view of the same, the third respondent reported that as per the office records, it is noticed that the area applied for by the fourth respondent is overlapping with the granted area of D. Kumara Swamy and accordingly recommenced the quarry lease application of the fourth respondent for rejection. 3. The second respondent issued a show cause notice to the fourth respondent as to why his application should not be rejected as per Rule 12(5)(d) of the A.P. Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules). After examination of the reply submitted by the fourth respondent, the second respondent by proceedings dated 31.07.2009, rejected the quarry lease application filed by the fourth respondent on the ground that the applicant has not attended for survey and inspection and also on the ground that the area is overlapping with the granted area of D. Kumara Swamy Thereafter, the third respondent reported that D. Kumara Swamy could not execute the lease deed within the stipulated period on the basis of the said report, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 16.10.2008, revoked the grant orders issued in favour of D. Kumara Swamy. Challenging the revocation orders of the second respondent, D. Kumara Swamy filed a revision before the Government. The fourth respondent also filed a revision before the Government on 19.12.2009 challenging the orders of the second respondent dated 31.07.2009. The petitioner herein, who is the applicant for an extent of 5 hectors in survey No. 180 of Mannemapalli Village, filed a revision on 01.12.2009 seeking impleadment in the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent and requested for dismissal of the revision petition. The petitioner herein, who is the applicant for an extent of 5 hectors in survey No. 180 of Mannemapalli Village, filed a revision on 01.12.2009 seeking impleadment in the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent and requested for dismissal of the revision petition. The Government issued a telegram to the petitioner as well as to the fourth respondent fixing the date of hearing as 03.03.2010. Another telegram was also issued fixing the date of hearing as 07.04.2010. Ultimately, the Government issued a memo No. 18305/M.II(1)/2009-4, dated 27.08.2010, permitting the petitioner therein (fourth respondent herein) for another opportunity of inspection, survey and demarcation within a period of 60 days from the date of that order and accordingly disposed of the revision. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent is barred by time. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the revision should 'have been filed by the fourth respondent within a period of 90 days and, though the order dated 31.07.2005 rejecting the application of the fourth respondent was communicated to the him within time, the fourth respondent filed the revision only on 19.12.2009 without filing an application for condonation of delay and hence the revision should have been dismissed by the first respondent. The petitioner, having waited for the prescribed period of filing revision, submitted an application for quarry lease on 01.12.2009, as the said area was available for grant. 5. The learned counsel for fourth respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the order dated 31.07.2009 of the second respondent was received by the fourth respondent on 21.09.2009. Since the said fact was intimated by the fourth respondent to the second respondent by a letter dated 25.09.2009, the filing of revision on 19.12.2009 is within time. 6. So far as the letter dated 25.09.2009 of the fourth respondent is concerned, though it bears a stamp of Mines and Industries Department, it appears to have not been received by the second respondent. 6. So far as the letter dated 25.09.2009 of the fourth respondent is concerned, though it bears a stamp of Mines and Industries Department, it appears to have not been received by the second respondent. This Court called for the file from the respondents one and two and it is noticed by this Court that after passing of order by the Hon'ble Minister for Mines on 19.07.2010, when a draft order was prepared and placed for approval, the Principal Secretary to Government expressed a doubt stating that "is the delay in filing RA condoned?" by his endorsement dated 17.08.2010. To the said query, the Assistant Secretary prepared a note as follows: "With reference to observations of Principal Secretary at para 14 above, it is submitted that the Revision Application filed by M/s. Legend Minerals, Karimnagar District, against the Proceedings No. 7415/R6-3/2007, dt. 31-07-2009, pertaining to the year 2010, and the same has not been filed within the time limit as prescribed in the Rules and the Hon'ble Revision Authority has not passed any orders regarding condonation of delay. However, disposal off the Revision Application under Rule 35 A of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966." From the above, it is clear that the Government has knowledge that the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent was with delay and the said delay was not condoned by the revisional authority. 7. Though the revision of D. Kumara Swamy was pending before the first respondent, and the application of the fourth respondent was overlapping with that area, no notice was issued to D. Kumara Swamy at any stage of the proceedings. The revision filed by D. Kumara Swamy was ultimately rejected in Memo No. 15113/M.II(1)/08 dated 09.08.2010. The impugned order was passed in favour of the fourth respondent on 27.08.2010 without indicating anything with regard to the rejection of the revision filed by D. Kumara Swamy. The pendency of revision by D. Kumara Swamy was also not considered while disposing of the revision of the fourth respondent. 8. This Court, in a recent order in W.P. No. 4169 of 2008 dated 29.10.2014, while considering Rules 35-A and 35-C of the Rules, held that consideration of the revision application without any application seeking condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause is not maintainable. 8. This Court, in a recent order in W.P. No. 4169 of 2008 dated 29.10.2014, while considering Rules 35-A and 35-C of the Rules, held that consideration of the revision application without any application seeking condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause is not maintainable. In the instant case also, the fourth respondent did not indicate any reason for the delay in filing the revision. On the other hand, the fourth respondent pressed into service a letter which is allegedly to have been sent on 25.09.2009 to the second respondent, which in fact was not received by the second respondent. In any event, such a communication should have been addressed to the first respondent, the revisional authority. 9. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the Memo No. 18305/M.II(1)/2009-4, dated 27.08.2010. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.