SMT. GHOUSIA BEGUM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declare the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in deciding the implead petition in I.A. No. of 2017 in Revision Petition No. of 2015 against the proceedings No.5395/HYD/AH/2013, dated 27.10.2015, filed by the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to decide the implead petition filed by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners 2 to 7 claim that their father and the father of 4th respondent were partners and were doing quarry business. Initially they did stone crushing business by establishing a firm under the name and style of M/s. City Stone Metal Industries. Subsequently, the said firm was dissolved in the year 2010. Thereafter, a Partnership Deed was executed on 30.10.2010 between the father and mother of petitioners 2 to 7 and father of 4th respondent. Later, father of petitioners 2 to 7 made an application to the 2nd respondent for quarry lease in an extent of Ac.145 guntas in survey No.268 of Banda Raviryala of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Father of petitioners 2 to 7 and father of 4th respondent are being partners, father of petitioners 2 to 7 authorised father of 4th respondent to look after the affairs of the partnership business Accordingly, the 2nd respondent granted quarry lease in favour of father of 4th respondent and allotted quarry Nos.4A & 4B for a period of 15 years. Though the father of petitioners 2 to 7 is also one of the partners of the firm, but father of 4th respondent is taking care of all payments. Initially the lease was granted without any demarcation area of quarry. As per Partnership Deed, dated 30.10.2010, the petitioners applied for work order, but the 3rd respondent directed them to pay the dead rent and not accorded any permission. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent, father of 4th respondent filed an appeal and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2015. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, father of 4th respondent filed a Revision Petition on 27.11.2015 before the 1st respondent, who in turn addressed a Memo, dated 11.12015, to respondents 2 and 3 to send the entire file for quick disposal of revision petition. The father of 4th respondent died in the month of Feb., 2016. After his death, the 4th respondent without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners, in collusion with one Anjaneyulu, has started removing the metal from the quarry and selling away the same illegally. Hence, the petitioners 2 to 7 filed an implead petition under Order I Rule 10 of Civil P.C. to implead themselves as Revision Petitioners 2 to 7 in the Revision Petition. But, till date the said implead petition was not numbered and it is kept pending.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction may be issued to the 1st respondent to pass orders on the implead application filed by petitioners 2 to 7 in the Revision Petition.