T Bheemanna vs Prl.Secy., Mines Geology Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2574 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                       WRIT APPEAL No.1532 OF 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

09.08.2017          passed        by     the      learned       Single    Judge     in

W.P.No.26713 of 2017.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the present

appellant, who was the holder of a quarry lease, submitted an

application for renewal on 19.11.2009 in respect of an area

admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.12/21 situated at Ogipur

Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As the renewal

application was not processed, she came up before this Court

by filing a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.10245 of 2010 and this

Court, by an order dated 29.04.2010, has disposed of the writ

petition directing the respondents therein to dispose of the

petitioner's renewal application within a period of four weeks.

Thereafter, a second writ petition was preferred i.e.,

W.P.No.18955 of 2010 challenging the legality and validity of

the letter dated 04.02.2010 issued by the District Collector,

Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and the same was disposed of

on 07.10.2010 directing the District Collector and Tahsildar to

issue No Objection Certificate on the basis of the report

submitted by the Sub-Collector within four weeks. Again a

third writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P.No.28575 of 2010 and

the same was disposed of by an order dated 19.12.2011

directing the Director of Mines and Geology to consider the case

of the petitioner for renewal only on recovery of the entire

amount due from the petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate, in open Court, has stated

before this Court that dues were cleared by the appellant.

However, no orders were passed by the authorities in the

matter. In those circumstances, again a petition was preferred

and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the same on the

ground of delay and laches.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the dues

were cleared as directed by this Court, the respondents were

certainly under an obligation to pass appropriate order in

respect of the renewal and the writ petition could not have been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay

and laches.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The

respondents are directed to pass a speaking order in respect of

renewal, if not already passed, as it has been stated in open

Court that they have already received outstanding dues, within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy

of this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

10.06.2022 JSU