LAWS(APH)-2013-3-14

E.V. RANGA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 14, 2013
E.V. Ranga Reddy Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease to quarry iron ore and laterite over an extent of 500 acres of land in survey No.172 of Pagadalapalli Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District, before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the 4th respondent herein. The application was forwarded to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent, recommending grant of mining lease, over an extent of about 500 acres. The 2nd respondent, in turn, submitted proposals before the Central Government, the 1st respondent, for approval of the mining plan. The 1st respondent accorded its approval through letter, dated 01-02-2006, and ultimately, the 2nd respondent granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner through orders in G.O.Ms.No.73, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 13-03-2006.

(2.) The 5th respondent, by name M/s Kodanda Rama Minerals, filed W.P.No.14472 of 2006 before this Court, challenging the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. It was pleaded that though its application is earlier in point of time, over the land in the same survey number, its plea was that an application submitted by it was pending consideration, and grant of lease in favour of the petitioner was contrary to law. This Court refused to entertain the writ petition. Through order dated 05-08-2010, this Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open to the 5th respondent to avail the remedy of revision. It was also mentioned that the revisional authority shall entertain the revision, without raising any objection as to limitation, if it is presented within two months from the date of the order in the writ petition.

(3.) The 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent with an application to condone the delay of 210 days. It was pleaded that initially the revision was filed within the time stipulated by this Court, but proper endorsement was not made thereon.