SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 647

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V. Siva Prasad Reddy.
For the Respondent: N. Vijay.

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 petition without consideration of its merits.

Headnote:

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:

    “.........to issue a writ or writs or order of orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the transfer of lease proceedings No. 5269/D12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent on the strength of forged signature on the transfer of quarry lease application dated 19.05.2022 forwarded by 3rd respondent as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside transfer of lease proceedings No. 5269/D12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent......”

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.........

    (a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. The 3rd respondent deposed to the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, interalia, that quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 7.152 Hectares in S.No. 738/P of Vandadi village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, YSR Kapada District was granted for a period of 20 years i.e. from 19.08.2016 to 18.08.2036 in favour of petitioner. The Proprietor of the petitioner M.Selvamanickem gave General Power of Attorney to K.Malarvizhi i.e. 4th respondent on 12.11.2018. The Proprietor of petitioner also gave authoritization dated 19.10.2018 to the 4th respondent to act on his behalf in all manners relating to getting of mining permits, quarterly, annual returns and to receive notice from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa etc.

(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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      AI

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top