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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
M/s.Rayan Granites Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 21512/2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Shoba
For the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP), GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)

A writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear or show interest in pursuing the case, particularly when the subject matter of the dispute, such as a lease, has already expired.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the actions of the respondents regarding the payment of dead rent and the execution of a lease deed, alleging violations of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. The petitioner sought a direction to treat the lease period from 25.04.2010 and adjust deposited amounts. The court examined the procedural history and noted that despite multiple adjournments and opportunities, there was no representation for the petitioner. It was further observed that the quarry lease in question had already expired on 23.10.2011, indicating a lack of interest by the petitioner to pursue the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to challenge dead rent payments and lease execution terms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. failure of the petitioner to represent the case and the expiry of the lease indicate a lack of interest in prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence. (Para 7)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd Respondent in proceedings bearing No.4136/Q/96, dated 24.06.2009 for payment of dead rent for the period for which the Petitioner had not operated and the orders of Rectification by the Director of Mines and Geology in proceedings No.11212/R1-1/2003, dated 2.2.2010 and lease deed executed by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in terms of the revised sketch in proceedings No.4135/Q/1996, dated 15.04.2010 and the action of 1st Respondent in dismissing the revision in Memo No.12646/M.II (2)/2010-4, dated 28.02.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the Memo of Government bearing No.5151/M.II(1)/2003, dated 16.11.2007, consequently direct the 1st Respondent to treat the lease period from the date of execution i.e. 25.04.2010 and adjust the amount of Rs.9 Iakhs deposited by the Petitioner towards future dead rent

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 26993 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to operate the quarry in Sy.No.1 of Addukonda village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District and issue transport permits to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N SHOBA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)

The Court made the following ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

“……..to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd Respondent in proceedings bearing No.4136/Q/96, dated 24.06.2009 for payment of dead rent for the period for which the Petitioner had not operated and the orders of Rectification by the Director of Mines and Geology in proceedings No.11212/R1-1/2003 dated 2.2.2010 and lease deed executed by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in terms of the revised sketch in proceedings No.4135/Q/1996, dated 15.04.2010 and the action of 1st Respondent in dismissing the revision in Memo No. 12646/M.II (2)/2010-4 dated 28.02.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development Regulation) Act 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the Memo of Government bearing No 5151/M.II(1)/2003, dated 16.11.2007, consequently direct the 1st Respondent to treat the lease period from the date of execution i.e. 25.04.2010 and adjust the amount of Rs.9 Iakhs deposited by the Petitioner towards future dead rent and pass such other order or orders.…….”

2. As seen from the docket proceedings, at the time of admission, this Court had not granted any interim protection in favour of the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner, on 19.08.2024 & 09.09.2024.

4. Finally, on 02.03.2026, this Court has passed the following order:-

“No representation for the petitioner.

According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology, the quarry lease in question was expired on 23.10.2011 itself.

So as to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, post on 03

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