Telangana High Court
M/S. Santhosh Sand And Granite Supply vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11376 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that aggrieved by the Demand Notice, dt.18.07.2024, though the petitioner had availed the remedy as provided under Rule 35A of Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') by filing a revision on 28.03.2025, the said revision has not been disposed of by the respondents-authorities till date.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid revision, it had also sought for interim relief of directing the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to 2 conduct survey of the area to an extent of 4.23 Hects in survey No.738 of Lakdaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, and even the said interim relief sought for has not been considered till date.
4. Petitioner further contends that in the meantime the State Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.60, dt.12.03.2025, providing for 'One Time Settlement' and since, the petitioner intends to avail the benefit under the said Scheme, it is necessary that a survey as sought for by the petitioner as an interim measure pending revision, is to be undertaken.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents would submit that the impugned demand has been issued by the respondents-authorities only after conducting a survey in the presence of the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to seek resurvey, merely on account of pendency of the revision before the Government.
6. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner, only in order to avoid payment of 3 amount under the aforesaid demand notice, is seeking for conduct of resurvey, and as such, the same cannot be considered.
7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
8. Admittedly, aggrieved by the Demand Notice, dt.18.07.2024, the petitioner had availed the further remedy as provided under Rule 35A of the Rules by filing a revision on 24.07.2024, by paying requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules.
9. A perusal of the revision preferred by the petitioner would also show that the petitioner having sought for a interim direction to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to conduct resurvey of the area over an extent of 4.23 Hectors in survey No.738 of Ladaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above revision.
10. As it is contended that the aforesaid revision is pending consideration, the authorities ought to have taken 4 a decision with regard to the interim relief sought for by the petitioner in the said revision.
11. The respondents-authorities, however, for the reasons best known have neither disposed of the aforesaid revision till date nor considered the interim relief that has been sought for by the petitioner, in the said revision.
12. Though the petitioner now claims of approaching the 2nd respondent and submitting a representation, dt.28.03.2025, seeking to conduct survey, as the 3rd respondent-authority claims of having issued a Demand Notice, dt.18.07.2024, in furtherance of the survey conducted in the considered view of this Court, the said authority cannot consider the application made by the petitioner for re-conduct of survey. If at all such a direction is to be issued, it can only be given in the revision pending before the Government.
13. As the petitioner along with the revision had sought for an interim direction and the same having not been considered as of date, this Court is of the view that without expressing an opinion on the rival claims, the 1st 5 respondent-authority is to be directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief in the revision pending before it, instead of this Court directing the 2nd respondent to undertake survey by considering the representation of the petitioner, dt.28.03.2025.
14. In view of the above, the 1st respondent-authority is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the interim application filed by the petitioner in the revision pending before the said authority, and pass appropriate orders therein, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 16th April, 2025 Note: Issue CC in two (02) days.
B/o(gra) 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.11376 of 2025 16th April, 2025 gra