THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4970 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief, is that despite the petitioner making application dated 30-06- 2022 seeking renewal of quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 2.00 Hectares in Sy.No.466/A of Ankireddypally village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the said application has not been considered by the respondent authorities as of date as required under Section 12 of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), which action it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submits that since there exists a demand towards mineral dues and penalty, the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of lease cannot be considered in terms of Rule 13(3) (i) of the Rules.

4. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that since the petitioner had filed Revision application on 12-12-2024 in terms of Rule 35-A of the Rules, and this Court by order dated 24-01-2025 passed in W.P.No.1846 of 2025 had directed the respondents to dispose of the above Revision within a period of six weeks and thus, the petitioner cannot seek for consideration of renewal application even before disposal of the Revision application.

5. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

6. At an earlier point of time, on the petitioner approaching this Court by filing a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1846 of 2025 claiming non-disposal of the Revision application and also respondent authorities resorting to recover the amount due under the demand notice, this Court by order dated 24-01-2025 directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the Revision application preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order. This Court further directed the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps for recovery of amount demanded under the notice impugned under the said Writ Petition.

7. Admittedly, the period of six weeks as directed by this Court for disposal of the Revision application is not yet over, for the petitioner to approach this Court by the present Writ Petition claiming inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering its application for grant of renewal of quarry lease.

8. Further, a reading of Rule 13(3)(1) of the Rules indicates that any application filed for grant of lease, which inter alia includes renewal also is subject to condition that there is no record of violation of Rules and breach of the terms and conditions of the lease deed.

9. Since, the petitioner has been issued with demand notice towards mineral dues by the respondent authorities in respect of its quarry for the earlier lease period, it cannot be said that there has been no breach of terms and conditions of lease for the petitioner to seek renewal of lease automatically.

10. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner having filed a Revision on 12-12-2024 against the demand notice issued and this Court having directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the aforesaid Revision within a period of six weeks and as the said period of six weeks is not yet over, the petitioner, by the present Writ Petition, cannot seek for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application submitted by it for grant of renewal of lease. Any such direction if issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, the same would be contrary to Rule 13(3)(i) of the Rules.

11. However, taking note of the fact tha