Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E Narayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 February, 2021
Bench: D Ramesh
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.18378 of 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 of Constitution
of India, seeking following relief:
" ...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st
respondent in allowing the Revision Application filed by the 4th
respondent vide orders in Memo No.10404/M.1(1)/2018-3 dated
10.10.2019, setting aside the determination order of the 2nd
respondent dated 13.08.2018 as illegal and arbitrary'.
2. Originally Sri.B.Amanullah Khan was granted quarry
lease by the 2nd respondent over an extent of 2.740 Hectares in
Sy.No's.2 and 9 of Agraharam and T.Sadum Village, Tanakallu
Mandal, Ananthapuram District for Black Granite for a period of
20 years in proceedings No.12315/R4-3/03, dated 17.02.2004.
The said leaseholder operated the quarry for some period and
subsequently, the said quarry lease was transferred in favour of
the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings
No.8869/R4-1/2012, dated 07.05.2012. The transfer lease deed
was executed and work orders were issued by the 3rd respondent
for the unexpired lease period upto 12.04.2024 in proceedings
No.386/02/2003, dated 28.08.2012. However, the 4th respondent
has not obtained the Environmental Clearance, Consent for
Establishment(CFE) and Consent for Operation(CFO) from the
concerned authorities, which is contrary to APMMC Rules and the
4th respondent has not operated the said quarry since the date of
transfer of lease is in his favour. The 4th respondent has also did
not take any dispatch permits for transportation of the mineral
since 24.03.2015, which is breach of Rule 34(1) of the APMMC
Rules, 1966. Hence, notice was issued to the 4th respondent for
the reasons stated above and the 4th respondent submitted his
explanation dated 29.03.2018 to the said notice. The 3rd
respondent before consideration of the application has passed the
determination order on 13.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said orders
the 4th respondent has filed a revision application before the 1st
respondent on 12.12.2018 under Rule 35-A of the APMMC Rules.
Though there is a delay of about 29 days in filing the said
revision, the 4th respondent has not filed any delay condone
petition along with the said Revision. Having came to know about
the said revision, the petitioner filed a petition to implead himself
as a respondent in the Revision Petition and opposed the said
revision. The then Minister for Industries and Commerce and
Mines, dismissed the Revision upholding the order of the 2nd
respondent by giving opportunity to the parties and after
considering all the material available on record. But before the
said order is passed and communicated by the 1st respondent,
there is change in the Government and new Government was
formed, Ruling party and the Minister has also changed. In view
of the changed circumstances, the 1st respondent passed the
impugned order in Memo No.10404/M.1/2018-3, dated
10.10.2019, setting aside the determination order of the 2nd
respondent dated 13.08.2018 and the 1st respondent failed to give
reasons for allowing the said Revision. He also submits that once
a Revisonal Authority has passed an order, if the Revisional
authority has changed due to certain reasons, the new Revisional
Authority can only approve the order of the earlier Revisional
Authority and communicate the same to the parties. The learned
counsel to support his contentions also relied on several
Judgments before this Court. But without considering the same,
the Revisional authority has allowed the Revision filed vide its
order dated 10.10.2019. These rules are as follows:-
The revision applicant submits that after the transfer
of quarry lease in his favour, the quarry is in operation and
he fell sick for some time due to urinary complaint and bed
ridden, therefore could not be able to submit annual
accounts, he applid for permits and they were not issued,
and he also applied for EC, CFE and CFO and his
application is pending for disposal.
After hearing the arguments and counter arguments
the revision authority allowed the revision application and
set-aside the determine orders of the Director of Mines and
Geology, Ibrahimnpatnam vide D.Dis.Proceedings
No.1067646/R4-1/2018, dated 13.08.2018 and restored
the quarry lease subject to payment of Mineral Revenue
arrears if any to Government and the impleaded petition
filed by Sri.E.Narayanan is disposed of.
Replying to the allegations made in the Writ Petition, the 4th
respondent has filed counter stating that when the Revision
application filed by him is pending for consideration, the Writ
Petitioner has filed application on 14.08.2018 seeking grant of
lease over his leased area. When the 3rd respondent was
proceeding to process the application even before his rights are
completely determined, he approached his Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.47514 of 2018. The said Writ Petition is disposed of to
pass orders on the Appeal/Revision filed by him and that the stay
was granted till such exercise is completed by an order dated
28.12.2018. He submits that the lease was determined on
13.08.2018 from office of 2nd respondent and he received the same
on 27.11.2018. The Writ Petitioner submitted his application on
his leased area on 14.08.2018 which shows that the writ
petitioner, well in advance anticipated that his lease was going to
be determined. He submits that the Writ Petitioner has no locus-
standi to question the revisional order passed in favour of the 4th
respondent. Hence, requests to dismiss the Writ Petition.
To support his contentions, he has relied on the Judgments
and the orders passed by this Court in identical situations in
W.P.No.12943 of 2009, dated 06.02.2014.
Considering the rival submissions having perused the
record, it is clear that after determination of the lease granted in
favour of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent has filed revision
before the 1st respondent. While deciding the revision petition
before the 1st respondent, notices were issued to both the
petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent and the impugned order
clearly discloses that after hearing the arguments of both the
parties, the Revisional authority has allowed the revision. But, no
reasons are assigned in the order regarding the contentions of the
Writ Petitioner. He simply says that the petition filed by the
petitioner is disposed of and no reasons are assigned for the same.
In identical matters, this Hon'ble Court has allowed several Writ
Petitions only on the ground that where an authority makes an
order in exercise of quasi-judicial function, it must record its
reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial
order must be supported by reasons.
Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and considering the submissions, the impugned order is set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for
passing appropriate orders after giving notice to both the parties,
within the period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 22.02.2021
tm
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.18378 of 2019
Dated: 22.02.2021
tm
