M SIVA RAMAKRISHNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Petition was posted before us by the Learned Single Judge since the point involved in the case is with regard to interpretation of Rule 9-N of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 dealing with authorized ramps. The learned Single judge of this Hon'ble Court, in W.P. No. 25793 of 2008, vide Order dt. 30-4-2009, has held that consent of Mandal Revenue Officer is necessary for permitting new ramps whereas it has been argued by the Counsel for Respondents that where The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884 (for short the Act, 1884) applies, it is only the River Conservator who should permit new ramps and that there is no need for obtaining the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. It is further argued by the Counsel for Respondents that it is only in respect of Government lands that the consent of Mandal Revenue Officer becomes necessary. Since the earlier judgment seeks for obtaining consent of M.R.O, the leaned Single Judge referred the matter to this Bench for adjudication of the matter.

(2.) Heard Sri V.C. Rudra Prasad, Learned Counsel for appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Mines and Geology and Smt. N. Shobha, for the respondents.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that petitioner has filed writ petition questioning the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14-9-2009 made in Proc.No.l006/Q/2009 permitting the third respondent to use new ramps at KM 12.800 to KM 13.000 of Theeparru Sand Reach. The writ petitioner is the lease holder in respect of Pendyala and Kanur Reach for which leasehold rights were granted in his favour and the same is valid up to 31-3-2011. The third respondent in the writ petition was the leaseholder for Theeparru Sand Reach between KM 12.800 to 13.000 for which ramp point was shown at 15/200 - 15/400 KMs and the said lease is valid upto 31-3-2011. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that if new ramp is permitted in favour of third respondent, it will result in loss to his business and requested the official respondents not to g rant any such permission unless and until his objection is considered. But without considering the representation of the petitioner, impugned proceedings were issued permitting the third respondent to use the ramp in between 12.800 KMs to 13.000 KMs of VRB within the limits of Kanuru Agraharam.