Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17604 (AP)

M/s. Sri Laksluni Narasimha Stone Crusher v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/3839/2019 · 2026-02-26

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010087062019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3839/2019 Between: 1. M/S. SRI LAKSLUNI NARASIMHA STONE CRUSHER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, F-2-5, RAVI TEJA TOWERS, CHINNA BONDILIPURAM, NEAR A.S.N. COLONY, BALAGA RURAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.REP. BY ITS PROPRITOR B. SARADHA, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, STATE OF A.P, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2 MRK,J W.P.NO.3839 OF 2019 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toTo issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issuing the Demand Notice No. 2072/MDL/2016, dated 11-09-2018, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals (Development AND Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No. 2072/MDL/2016, dated 11-09-2018 and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice No. 2072/MDL/2016, dated 11-09-2018 and direct the 4th respondent to issue dispatch permits for transportation of Road Metal forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To take up W.P. NO.3839 of 2019 for being mentioned narrating the normal seigniorage fee instead of Rs. 86,175/- (Eighty Six thousand one Hundred and Seventy Five only) mentioned as 13,04,300/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Four Thousand and Three Hundred only) and pass 3 MRK,J W.P.NO.3839 OF 2019 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following: 4 MRK,J W.P.NO.3839 OF 2019 ORDER:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “....to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the Demand Notice No. 2072/MDL/2016, dated 11-09- 2018, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to Mines and Minerals (Development AND Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules 1966 and the rules made there under apart from being violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the constitution of India and consequently call for records in the demand Notice No.2072/MDL/2016, dated 11-09-2018 and set aside the same...” 2. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.K.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 27.02.2026 LSP