AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Raghunandan Rao, J
The petitioner who was operating a quarry lease, for Road Metal and Building Stone, over an extent of 9.00 Hectares of land in Sy.No.75 of Bowlawada Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, sought renewal of the same, from the authorities of the Mines and Geology Department. As the said application for renewal, was not being considered, the petitioner had approached this court by way of W.P.No.13169 of 2022. This Court by an order dated 04.05.2022 had allowed the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent therein, to pass orders on the renewal application of the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order. The 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 16.05.2022 in proceedings No.4023/Q2A/2017 had granted deemed extension up to 31.03.2023.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court, by way of the present contempt case.
Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the direction of this Court was for considering the application for renewal. As such, the 2nd respondent was required to extend it by a further period of 15 years whereas the extension has been given only up to 31.03.2023 and the same would amount to violation of the directions of this Court.
Sri K.Naveen Kumar learned counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 14.03.2022, the lease of the petitioner can only be extended up to 31.03.2023 and as such the respondent, who is bound by the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.13, had extended the lease period up to 31.03.2023. He would further submit that the direction of this, Court to consider and pass orders on the extension application has been complied with. He further submits that the petitioner can always challenge the proceedings of the respondents, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. However, that cannot be a ground for filing a contempt case.
A perusal of the order passed by the respondent shows that the respondent had extended the lease period up to 31.03.2023, after considering the effect of G.O.Ms.No.13 on the pending application.
A question of whether G.O.Ms.No.13 would restrict the extension to 31.03.2023 or whether the respondent ought to have extended it beyond 31.03.2023 is a debatable issue and the same can only be raised by way of fresh proceedings challenging the said order.
In the circumstances, this contempt case is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the proceedings of the respondents, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.