The Govt. Of A.P., Rep. By Its Secy, ... vs M/S. Him Greeshma Granites 27 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4731 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 688 of 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

         Heard Mr. T.V.Ramana, learned Government Pleader for

Industries and Commerce appearing for the appellants and

Ms. Haritha, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 28/writ

petitioners.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2008

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6188 of 2001 and

batch.

3. In the related writ petition and batch, challenge made was to

the legality and validity of the then A.P.Mineral Dealers

Rules, 2000.

4. By the common judgment and order dated 30.10.2008, the

aforesaid batch of writ petitions were partly allowed in the

following manner:

From the detailed discussion undertaken above, the conclusion is irresistible that the explanation to Rule 2(h) by ::2::

which the processed mineral and final products are treated as 'Mineral' is ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government and the same is accordingly struck down. Consequently, the definition of 'Dealer' in Rule 2(1)(d) shall be read down as to exclude the persons, who undertake manufacturing/processing activity using mineral as raw material. It is, however, made clear that the State Government and its officials authorized for this purpose shall be free to inspect and check any premises or factory/industry where the mineral is stored before it is processed/manufactured and exercise the power of seizure of mineral before it is processed and converted into a finished product, if it is found that such mineral has not suffered royalty and/or dead rent.

The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

5. It is submitted at the bar that after the above judgment was

rendered, the rules in question have undergone several

amendments.

6. That apart, we find that on 14.06.2012, prayer for stay of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2008 was rejected

by the Division Bench. That being the position, we are of the view

that nothing survives for adjudication in this writ appeal.

::3::

7. However, learned Government Pleader for Industries and

Commerce is granted liberty to seek revival of this writ appeal, if

anything survives for adjudication.

8.` Writ Appeal is accordingly closed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 19.09.2022 LUR