Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
M/s. Sai Ramana Metal Industries - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 23051 of 2023
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Mines Act - Quarry Lease - T.S.M.M.C Rules, 1966 - Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company was granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal. The 4th respondent issued a Demand Notice alleging unauthorized excavation and transportation of stone and metal outside the leased area. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Demand Notice and seeking issuance of dispatch permits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 4th respondent's actions were arbitrary and lacked consideration of the petitioner's explanations. The court set aside the Demand Notice and directed the 4th respondent to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Demand Notice and the petitioner's entitlement to dispatch permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 4th respondent's decision lacked proper consideration and violated principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized the need for the 4th respondent to act in accordance with Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the 4th respondent to issue dispatch permits to the petitioner. The 4th respondent was also instructed to proceed afresh in the matter, giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and passing an appropriate reasoned order.
ORDER:
Heard Smt. P.Vijayalaxmi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus questioning the Notice of Respondent No.4 in Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 20.06.2023 is against the orders of this Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.31963 of 2017, dated 03.03.2023 and in not issuing dispatch permits to petitioner to operate the quarry for building stone and road metal over an extent of 1.69 hectares in Sy.No. 132 situated at Rudraram village and over an extent of 3.27 hectares in Sy.No. 738 situated at Lakadaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District is arbitrary, illegal unjust and unconstitutional in violation of T.S.M.M.C Rules, 1966, consequently call for the records pertaining to Demand Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 20.06.2023.
3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, in brief, is as follows :
b) The petitioner erected metal stone crushing unit within the close vicinity of leased area. The mineral extracted from the leased area is being utilized as captive source of raw material required for metal crushing industry and petitioner had been conducting quarry operations without any complaints. As the lease period is coming to an end by 04.07.2015, petitioner has submitted renewal application, within the stipulated period as prescribed in T.S.M.M.C Rules, 1966 on 16.02.2015.
c) The 4th Respondent forwarded renewal application to Tahsildar for issuance of NOC, the Tahsildar in turn issued NOC vide its Letter No.C1/1864/2015, dated 04.07.2015. Instead of passing orders for renewal of lease the 4th respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice No.584/Q3/2000, dated 28.09.2016 received on 27.10.2016. On receipt of said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 02.11.2016 stating that, the local Waddera Community people had conducted a quarry operation adjacent to petitioner’s leased area and when petitioner questioned the same for illegal operations they informed that they are entitled to conduct quarry operations without any permission.
d) Moreover, the above mentioned Waddera Community are entitled and exempted from payment of Seigniorage Fee in view of the Govt. Circulars and the same was brought to the notice of the Department with the names. Hence, the petitioner has not conducted any illegal operations and operated within the leased area as shown in the boundaries by the department and sketch annexed to the lease deed and thus, requested to drop the proceedings and initiate action against the person Mr.V. Srimanarayana and his persons who actually operated illegally.
e) Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued a Demand Notice NO.584/Q3/2000, dated 15.11.2016 simply stating that explanation submitted by the petitioner is not considered and it is not satisfactory. Aggrieved by the said Demand Notice, the petitioner preferred Revision before the 1st Respondent but the same was dismissed vide Memo No.2262/M.I(Q)/2017-4, dated 23.08.2017.
f) Aggrieved by the orders of Revisional Authority the petitioner has filed WP.No.31963 of 2017 before this
The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration, adherence to principles of natural justice, and compliance with Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952 in matters related to quarry leases and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper consideration and compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing orders related to quarry leases and demand no....
Failure to supply essential documents for a demand notice constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating reconsideration of the petitioner’s explanations.
For the purpose of Rule 35-A, if the Government feels that the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on 16.10.2018 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the D....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
