HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner had filed an application on 21.02.2009 for grant of a quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 10 hectares of land in Sy.No.1 of Sontinuru Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the application filed by him was being processed, when respondents 5 and 6 sought to take over the application and obtain the quarry lease in the name of a firm, in which they are partners, forcibly. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.19131 of 2020 before this Court seeking a direction to the official respondents to consider the application of the petitioner as a joint application of the 5th respondent partnership firm and this Court by an order dated 20.10.2020 had directed the respondent 2 to 4 therein, (who are the official respondents herein) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the partnership firm of the 5th respondents on 03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020, by following due process of law, in the light of the existing Rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent, with a view to help respondents 5 and 6, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2020 to the 4th respondent, directing the 4th respondent to process the applications filed by the petitioner in the name of the 5th respondent in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court orders.
4. Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 20.10.2020 and the said order requires to be set aside.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6, on the basis of the counter affidavits filed, would submit that the application of the petitioner had remained dormant at a particular stage and the petitioner was not even able to pay the amounts required to be paid for processing the application. At that stage, it was the 6th respondent, who had taken steps for keeping the application alive by remitting necessary funds. He further submits that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the 6th respondent and other persons, who had all come together to form the 5th respondent firm, which was registered on 25.06.2018. He submits that in pursuance of the said agreement, the petitioner had also filed notarised affidavit admitting these facts and a bank account had also been opened for the purpose of carrying the business of the 5th respondent firm. Sri P. Veera Reddy, leaned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the fact that the petitioner and his two sons are partners among the 7 partners in the 5th respondent firm.
6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is on account of this arrangement that the 5th respondent firm had made representations dated 03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020 requesting that the application filed by the petitioner be treated as the application of the 5th respondent. As these representations were not being considered, the 5th respondent had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.19131 of 2020, which had been disposed of in the manner set out above.
7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner having realised the value of the quarry area and having obtained the benefits from the 6th respondent has now turned around and 3 RRR,J W.P.No.6545 of 2021 is seeking to wriggle out of his commitments contending that all the documents signed by him were fabricated and obtained by coercion.
8. Having heard both sides, it is clear that the controversy, for the present, revolves around the understanding of the official respondents relating to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.19131 of 2020.
9. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the direction given by this Court to respondents 2 and 3 was to consider and pass orders on the representations of the 5th respondent after hearing both sides.
10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of clarifying that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent shall be understood to mean that the 4th respondent shall dispose of the representations of the 5th respondent dated 03.04.2020, 06.07.2020 and 20.08.2020, in accordance with law, after hearing both the petitioner herein and respondents 5 and 6. It is further made clear that the scope of the enquiry before the 4th respondent is on the question of whether the application filed by the petitioner should be treated as an application filed by the 5th respondent partnership firm or not. This exercise shall be concluded by the 4 th respondent within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
15th September, 2022 Js.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.6545 of 2021
15th September, 2022
Js.