Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.Rayalaseema Quartz Pvt. Ltd., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 February, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.30659 of 2021
ORDER:
The quarry lease for quartz in an extent of 149 hectors in Sy.No.01 of Thumukunta Village, Gaaliveedu Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, had been transferred in favour of the petitioner from the earlier lessee. The period of the lease available to the petitioner was up to 2030.
The 2nd respondent vide order No.3908873/D12-1/2020, dated 15.03.2021 had determined the said quarry lease on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the earlier notices issued to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved a revision before the 1st respondent raising various contentions including non-receipt of the earlier notices said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent had thereafter dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide Memo No.7064/M.I(1)/2021, dated 03.12.2021. Aggrieved by the said impugned memo, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he was not present in the course of the hearing and that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner.
The learned Government Pleader would submit that the orders were passed after hearing the petitioner.
The aforesaid controversy need not detain this Court for the reasons that are set out below.
A perusal of the order passed by the 1st respondent would show that no reasons have been given in the said order. The entire order 2 RRR,J W.P.No.30659 of 2021 essentially sets out the rival contentions raised by either side and then goes on to simply dismiss the revision without assigning any reason as to why the grounds raised by the petitioner are not being considered by the 1st respondent and as to why the reasons set out by the official respondents have been accepted by the 1st respondent.
In the absence of reasons being given in the order, it is necessary to set aside the said order and remand the matter back to the 1st respondent for proper hearing, before passing any orders. Needless to say any order passed by the 1st respondent shall contain reasons.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
22nd February, 2022 Js.
3 RRR,J W.P.No.30659 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.30659 of 2021 22nd February, 2022 Js.