KAKANI PURNACHANDER RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court issued Rule Nisi on 20. 12. 2007. Counter affidavit is filed. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in Proceedings Memo No. 15489/spiu and SAND/2007-1, dated 7. 12. 2007 to the extent of treating the lease period with retrospective effect from 10. 10. 2007 instead from the date of execution of lease deed for quarrying ordinary sand in Lankapalli Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and A. P. Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1966 and pass such orders.

(2.) HEARD Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the Industries and Commerce. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had taken the Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would explain that absolutely there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner and in the light of Rule 9-I (2) of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'), as amended, the lease period shall commence with effect from the date of the execution of the lease deed. But, however, the lease deed is being reckoned with otherwise by the respondents and hence the same is unsustainable.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries would explain that it was the default on the part of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner himself cannot take advantage of his own wrong, if any, and hence the relief prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The learned government Pleader had also taken this Court through the relevant portions of the counter affidavit.