Aarna Stones vs M/S Raghuram Minerals,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1155 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                        Writ Appeal No.85 of 2021

                        (Through video conferencing)

AARNA STONES, Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Aluri Sri Hari, S/o Chenchu Krishna Rao,
42-1-162(1), Thurpu Kamma Palem, Ongole,
Prakasam Dt., A.P. - 523001.                           ..     Appellant


                                   Versus

M/s.Raghuram Minerals, rep. by its
Managing Partner Sri C.Shashi Kumar,
S/o late Sri Sriramulu, R/o Flat No.207,
2nd Floor, Lasya Residency, Backside Durga
and Murugan Hotel, Kaza Village,
Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District & 6 Others         ..     Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                   :    Mr.Marri Venkata Ramana

Counsel for Respondent No.1                 :    Mr.P.Veera Reddy

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3            :    G.P. for Industries &
                                                 Commerce
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6           :    G.P. for Mines & Geology

Counsel for Respondent No.7                 :    G.P. for Revenue


                                 JUDGMENT

Dt : 25.02.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the appeal.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the following portion of the order of

the learned Single Judge, dated 19.01.2021 in W.P.No.21044 of 2020 :

"In view of the above, the 5th respondent is directed to consider the request made by the petitioner on 16.9.2020 restricting his claim for Sy.No.871 in Konidena Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District by considering the NOC granted to the others with regard to the said Sy.Number and pass appropriate orders with regard to the application made by the petitioner on 26.11.2012, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. In paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit, averments were made with

reference to the appellant in connection with NOC granted to it.

4. In the order extracted above also there is reference to NOC

granted to others and it is the apprehension of the appellant that taking

advantage of the order, a prejudicial order may be passed by the

authorities. We make no observations on merits, but, at the same time,

we are of the opinion that having regard to the case projected by the writ

petitioner, the presence of the appellant was necessary in the writ petition

and that is why, subsequently, the appellant was impleaded as a party

respondent.

5. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the aforesaid order,

as extracted above, so far as it relates to the direction to consider the

request made by the writ petitioner. We leave it open to the writ

petitioner to renew the prayer for interim order in the presence of the

appellant herein and in the event of any such prayer for interim order is

made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr