DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. PRL SUB JUDGE TIRUPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution the order dt. 19-5-1989 passed by the lower Court granting an interim injunction and the subsequent delay and inaction on the part of the lower Court in not disposing of the petition for temporary injunction on merits are assailed. The facts leading to this revision petition may be stated briefly: The second respondent herein was granted a quarry lease for road metal and building stone in the year 1979 for a period of five years which expired in the year 1994. Before the expiry of the lease period, the second respondent is stated to have applied for renewal of the lease. As the concerned authorities did not pass orders thereon, the second respondent filed a writ petition W.P. No. 14310 of 1984 in this Court for directing the authorities to renew the lease in his favour. In the said writ petition he obtained interim orders in W.P.M.P. No.18847 of 1984 permitting him to carry on the quarrying operations pending disposal of the writ petition. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 15-7-1988 with certain directions according to which the second respondent was required to make a representation to the Government and the Forest Department officials were required to make a personal inspection and submit a report to the Government who will thereupon pass appropriate orders on the renewal application filed by the second respondent after referring the matter to the Central Government also as required under the rules. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, it appears that the quarry was inspected by the forest officials concerned in March and April, 1989 and necessary proposals were submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forests for consideration. As no final orders were passed by the concerned and in the mean time attempts were made to prevent the second respondent from operating the quarry, the second respondent filed O.S.No.5 of 1989 before the Vacation Civil Judge, Chittoor, for a declaration mat he is entitled for the lease-hold rights in respect of the said quarry and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to operate the said quarry. Along with the said suit, the second respondent filed LA. No.18 of 1989 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their staff from in any way obstructing the quarry operations and transport of the metal stones by the petitioner from the quarry pending disposal of the suit. The said application initially came up for orders before the Vacation Civil Judge on 4-5-1989. On that day the Vacation Civil Judge ordered urgentnotice to be issued to the respondents and posted the petition to 10-5-1989 for counter and disposal. As notices were not issued for want of service postage stamps, on 10-5-1989, the Vacation Civil Judge ordered issue of fresh notices to respeondents urgently through Court and by R.P. and posted the LA. to 19-5-1989. Meanwhile status quo was ordered to be maintained. On 19-5-1989 it appears that the Assistant Government Pleader filed memo of appearance for R.3 i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor who also appeared in person in Court on that day. Notices of R.1 and R.2 i.e., Assistant Director of Mines & Geology and the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Cuddapah, were not returned. The Vacation Civil Judge thereupon passed the following order on 19-5-1989: "Heard the petitioner's advocate. Issue interim injunction EN. to R.1 and R2 and counter, if any, of R.3 by 13-6-89."

(2.) It appears that a counter-affidavit was immediately filed by the third respondent therein (petition herein) opposing the grant of temporary injunction and requesting to vacate the interim injunction. But so far the petition for injunction has not been taken up for hearing or disposed of on merits by the Principal Sub-Judge, Tirupati where the suit and the said I.A. are now pending. The petitioner complains that the lower Court has been unnecessarily adjourning the petition from time to time for the past six years without any justification and that under the guise of the interim injunction the second respondent is illegally carrying the quarry operations even though the lease in his favour expired long ago and there is no subsisting lease in his favour.

(3.) After ordering notice before admission this Court by an order dated 2-9-1995 suspended the operation of the impugned order until further orders. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and contending inter alia that he is entitled for renewal of the tease since he has complied with all the necessary formalities and conditions, that he is also lawfully carrying on the quarry operations on payment of the necessary seigniorage dead-rent and other cesses to the Government, that the default is only on me part of the petitioner and other official respondents, that he cannot be penalised for their default, that the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or other infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, that the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay and non-disposal of the petition for injunction by the lower Court, that the second respondent filed LA. No.459 of 1994 in O.S. No.159 of 1989 to direct the petitioner and others to take immediate steps for sending the proposals for renewal of the lease, that by an order dated 9-11-1994 the Court below directed the petitioner to file a memo informing the Court of the result of the proposals sent by him but he has not done so and has been taking time from 16-11-1994 and the interim suspension granted by this Court may be vacated and the revision may be dismissed.