IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
CTP Granite and Exports – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3303 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Forgery - Quarry Lease Transfer - Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 - Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) - Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a) - Partnership Deed - Suppression of Material Facts
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to declare the transfer of quarry lease proceedings as illegal and unconstitutional, alleging forgery of signatures. The 4th respondent, a partner of the petitioner, obtained the transfer of lease in accordance with the Rules, 1966. The petitioner approached the court, alleging forgery and suppression of material facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease transfer was conducted in accordance with Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a) of the Rules, 1966. It concluded that the petitioner approached the court by suppressing material facts, invoking the doctrine of suppresio veri suggestio falsi and dismissed the writ petition with costs.
Issues: 1. Validity of the lease transfer proceedings under Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Rules, 1966. 2. Allegation of suppression of material facts by the petitioner. 3. Non-inclusion of the transferee as a party respondent in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The lease transfer was found to be in accordance with the applicable rule, and the petitioner's approach to the court was deemed to involve suppression of material facts, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority.
ORDER :
1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. Petitioner is a proprietary concern represented by sole Proprietor. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner granted lease in an extent of 7.152 Hectares in S.No. 738/P of Vandadi village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, YSR Kapada District for quarrying colour granite for a period of 20 years valid upto 18.08.2036. The 4th respondent by forging the signatures of Proprietor of petitioner, submitted transfer application dated 19.05.2022 before 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent without conducting any enquiry, recommended to 2nd respondent for transfer of lease in favour of 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent by proceedings No. 5269/D12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 granted permission to transfer the quarry lease in favour of 4th respondent. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed.
3.........
(b) M/s CTP Granite and Exports, Proprietor M.Selvamanickam, filed an application seeking transfer of lease in Form-R under Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules, 1966”) requesting for transfer of lease in favour Managing Partner of M/s CTP Granite and Exports, duly enclosing application fee vide Challan No. 61057714892022 dated 12.05.2022 along with notarized affidavit signed by M.Selvamanickam. Form-A contains the details of partners of the firm.
(c) The Proprietor of petitioner and 4th respondent are partners of M/s CTP Granite and Exports. After causing survey and inspection of lease, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Kadapa submitted proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for transfer of quarry lease in favour of) M/s CTP Granite and Exports, Managing Partner Malarvizhi. Accordingly, the Director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings dated 21.06.2022 transferred the said lease in favour of) M/s CTP Granite and Exports. Lease deed was executed vide proceedings No. 1734/TQL/2022 dated 29.06.2022.
(d) Legal notice dated 06.07.2022 was issued by the Proprietor of petitioner not to change the name in records. The Proprietor of petitioner issued another legal notice dated 16.07.2022 withdrawing the complaint filed through legal notice dated 06.07.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a notarized affidavit dated 12.07.2022 stating that both Proprietor of petitioner and 4th respondent entered into partnership deed dated 19.10.2018 and reduced the terms and conditions in writing and due to misunderstandings, legal notice dated 06.07.2022 was issued. The partners
Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India
S.J.S. Business Enterprise (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar
State of Haryana vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1997) 2 SCC 431: AIR 1977 SC 781
Welcom Hotel vs. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015
AI
The petitioner's obligation to disclose all material facts when approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the suppression of material facts may lead to the dismissal of....
The court found the mining lease transfer application ineligible due to failure to comply with legal requirements, notably the absence of an approved mining plan as mandated by law.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available if alternative remedies exist, and exhausting statutory remedies is mandatory before judicial intervention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to mining lease and the transfer of prospecting license must comply with the requirements of the Mineral Concession Rules, 196....
Point of law: The Director shall reject the application for P.L. or Q.L. in the event of any default on the part of applicant, in attending the inspection and survey or submission of valid mineral re....
Point of Law : Court will not and cannot earn any sympathy or favourable order unless the statement is supported by the sincere, honest and diligent efforts made and manifested before the authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.