Ctp Granite And Exports vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.3323 of 2023 ... Petitioner. Versus » : Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy Counsel for the petitioners : GP for Mines Ss Geology Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Sri N.Vijay Counsel for respondents No.4 ORDER The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief; State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and three others. ... Respondents. “... to issue a writ or writs or order of orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the transfer of lease proceedings No.5268/D 12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 issued by the 2n<i respondent in favour of 4‘h respondent on the strength of forged signature on CTP Granite 85 Exports, Rep. by its Sole Proprietor Selvamanickam, S/o S.Manikam, aged 43 years, Occ: Sole Proprietor CTP Granite 85 Exports, R/o Room No.3, Police Welfare Complex, Opposite HDFC Bank, Mittoor, Chittoor District.
Petitioner is a submitted The 3«-d 3. a) Counter affidavit was filed behalf of the on respondents. 1 to 3. The 3’‘4 respondent deposed to the f 'V / 19,05.2022 before 3*^4 respondent. respondent without granted permission to transfer the quarry lease in favour of 4^^ respondent. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed. the transfer of quarry lease application dated 19.05.2022 forwarded by 3rd respondent as without juri iction, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set asrde transfer of lease proceedings No.5269/D12- 1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of 4th respondent ” an extent of 4.615 Hectares in S.NO.738/P of Vandadi village, Chinnamandyam Mandal. YSR Kapada District for quarrying colour granite for a period of 20 years valid upto 09.06.2036. The 40> respondent by forging the signatures of Proprietor of petitioner, transfer application dated proprietary concern represented by sole Proprietor. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner granted lease in conducting any enquiry, recommended to 2nd respondent for transfer of lease in favour of 4»> respondent. The 2n<i respondent by proceedings NO.5268/D12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 interalia, that quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of village, of Vandadi S.NO.738/P in 4.615 Hectares Chinnamandyam Mandal, YSR Kapada District was granted for a period of 20 years i.e. from 10.06.2016 to 09.06.2036 in The 12.11.2018. K.Malarvizhi i.e. Proprietor of petitioner also gave authoritization dated 19.10.2018 to the 4*^ respondent to act on his behalf in all annual returns and to receive notice from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa etc. Exports,' Proprietor and Granite b) M/s CTP M.Selvamanickam, filed an application seeking transfer of lease in Form-R under Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short Managing Partner of M/s CTP Granite and Exports, duly enclosing application fee vide Challan No.61057743972022 dated 12.05.2022 along with notarized affidavit signed by “the Rules, 1966”) requesting for transfer of lease in favour manners relating to getting of mining permits, quarterly. counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was contended. favour of petitioner. The Proprietor of the petitioner 4^ respondent on M.Selvamanickem gave General Power of Attorney to M. Selvamanickam. Form-A contains the details of partners of the firm. c) The Proprietor of petitioner and 4* Of Mines and deed issued by the the terms « submitted a ■i-: .. d) Legal notice dated 06.07.2022 was Proprietor of petitioner not to change the name in records. The Proprietor of petitioner issued another legal notice dated 16.07.2022 withdrawing the complaint filed notice dated 06.07.2022. through legal Subsequently, the petitioner notarized affidavit dated 12.07.2022 stating that both Proprietor of petitioner and 4* respondent entered into partnership deed dated 19.10.2018 and reduced respondent are partners of M/s CTP Granite and Exports. After causing survey and inspection of lease, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Kadapa submitted proposals to the Director of Mmes and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for transfer of quarry lease in favour of) M/s CTP Granite and Exports, Managing Partner Malarvizhi. Accordingly, the Director Geology vide proceedings dated 21.06.2022 transferred the said lease in favour of) M/s CTP Granite and Exports. Lease was executed vide proceedings No.l733/TQL/2022 dated 29.06.2022. and conditions in writing and due to. misunderstandings, legal notice dated 06.07.2022 was issued. The partnership of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. petitioner. It was contended that the Proprietor of petitioner and respondent formed into partnership firm in the year 2018 and 4^^ respondent being the Managing Partner. The Proprietor of petitioner was unable to repay the loan and offered to transfer the subject mining lease in lieu of discharge of loan amounts. The transfer of lease in favour of M/s CTP Granite and Exports was done in accordance with 1966. and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. • deed, where the Proprietor of petitioner and 4* respondent are partners, was registered with Registrar of Firms, Kadapa on 29.11.2018 as document No.231 of 2018 under Section 59 The 4* respondent filed separate counter affidavit and reiterated, the averment regarding granting lease in favour of Petitioner approached the Court, seven months thereafter the procedure contemplated under the Rules, 5. 6. and counsel for 4th
Learned counsel and 4th respondent notice A' •'. z same was registered, accordance with the Rules. He point out that petitioner got issued legal compulsorily 17 of the Registration Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that lease was not transferred in accordance with Rules. He also would contend that by forging signature of Proprietor of petitioner, application was submitted. appearing for 4th respondent would contend that proprietor of petitioner entered into a partnership and the Later, lease was transferred in ...also would Heard Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines Geology for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel representing Sri N.Vyay, learned respondent. Reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was contended that respondents 1 to 3 did not deny the averments in the affidavit regarding forgery of signatures and no enquiry was conducted. The quarry lease is registerable document under Section Act, 1908. and later got the 9. Learned i) i)
Undisputed facts, as per record, are that lease was granted in favour of petitioner for an extent of 4.615 Hectares period is from 10.06.2016 to 09.06.2036. As seen from the ‘ in S.NO.738/P of Vandadi village, Chinnamandyam Mandal, YSR Kapada District for quarrying colour granite for a period of 20 years. Form-G was executed oii 10.06.2016. The lease Government Pleader while adopting the arguments would further contend, that 2nd respondent passed the orders impugned strictly in accordance with law. Whether the proceedings issued by the 2*“* respondent vide No.5268/D12-1/2022 dated 21.06.2022 is contrary to Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Rules, 1966? same withdrawn. Petitioner to settle private disputes approached the Court by suppressing facts with unclean hands. ii) Whether the petitioner approached the court by suppressing material facts? Whether transferee of lease is arrayed as party respondent? 10. .The points for consideration are: material the and 4^** of papers were 12. application, as stated of petitioner and 4th 13.06.2022 respondent basing on ; issued proceedings impugned in Along with supra, the affidavits of Proprietor respondent, partnership deed. Firm Registration Certificate and GST Registration Certificate were filed. Consent letter dated papers filed along with counter affidavit, . Proprietor of petitioner The application for transfer of lease in Fonn-R was made in the office of respondent on 19.05.2022 seeking transfer of unexpired lease period from petitioner to M/s CTP Granite and Exports, a Proprietaiy Firm. signed by the petitioner is duly notarized. After foUowing the procedure, 3rd respondent submitted a report. The 2nd the report of S^’d respondent, i writ petition. respondent entered into partnership and the same was registered in the name of M/s CTP Granite and Exports on 23.11.2018 with Registrar Firms, Kadapa. Form-A discloses the names of Proprietor of petitioner and 4«. respondent as partners. Partnership deed , dated 23.11.2018 and GST Registration Certificate were filed along with counter affidavit and in fact those also filed along with transfer application.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that lease is for non-captive purpose I and hence, lease cannot be transferred in view of Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Rules, 1966. Learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for 4*11 respondent drew the attention of the Court to amendment to Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Rules, 1966. Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a) is substituted by way of of a lease, with the prior written approval of the Director of Mines Ss Geology, may be permitted to transfer such lease in favour of the existing mineral based industry or to a new mineral based industry, which shall be established within 2 years from the date of execution of transfer lease deed. It further manifests that if the industry is not established within two (2) years, no further extension of time shall be granted eind the lease shall be cancelled. In view of the same, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the quarry lease granted is for non-captive purpose and the same is not transferrable, falls to ground. G.O.Ms.No.58 Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department dated 08.03.2019. As per Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) (a), the holder 14. 15. The application was The affidavit dated was duly notarized, shows issuance of legal notice, withdrawing legal notice, settlement of disputes and also registration of partnership. Whether the signatures of Proprietor of petitioner were forged or not, the authorities need not go into and consider those aspects in the light of legal notices and notarized affidavit filed on behalf of proprietor of petitioner. made before the authorities as per Rule 12 (5) (h) (viii) of the Rules, 1966 and after considering the report of the 3«> respondent, 2"^ respondent transferred the lease in favour of 4th respondent. The Proprietor of the petitioner is also one of the partners in the Partnership firm iri whose favour the lease was transferred. It is pertinent to was filed. Both The other contention of learned counsel for petitioner that signatures of Proprietor of petitioner were forged and application was made by 4th respondent is also meritless and falls to ground. Along with counter affidavit, legal notice dated 06.07.2022 issued on behalf of petitioner. Another legal noticed dated 16.07.2022 issued on behalf of petitioner withdrawing legal notice dated 06.07.2022 notices were issued by the same counsel. 12.07.2022, party respondent to the writ petition. Instead, arrayed the t Managing Partner of transferee as party respondent. Thus, transferee of lease for the unexpired period was not shown as party respondent to the writ petition. On ground , alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. making averment regarding alleged forgery of signatures. nothing has been stated about these docuirients. This instance makes the thing more than discernable that the Proprietor of petitioner is aware of those documents and however, approached the Court by suppressing material facts. These documents, prima fade, show that the Proprietor of petitioner is also partner to the partnership firm.
Thus, the discussion made supra, discerns that the petitioner approached this Court by suppressing material facts. Doctrine of suppresio veri suggestio falsi and suppresio veri expressio falsi would apply to the facts of the case. s The documents as stated supra, were filed along with s the counter affidavit. However, in the reply affidavit except mention here that petitioner did not array the transferee as In Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India^, 18. the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: In S.J.S. Business Enterprise (P) Ltd. v. State of 19. Bihar^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as Under:
^2007 (8) see 449 2 2004 (7) see 166 “As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [R. v. General Commrs. for the purposes of the Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1 KB 486: 86 LJKB 257: 116 LT 136 (CA)]. Thus, when the liability to income tax was questioned by an applicant on the ground of her non-residence, the fact that she had purchased and was maintaining a house in “33. It is thus, clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court; the writ court may refuse to: entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” •|- 20. 226 of the Constitution of India should not suppress the 21. Since the petitioner approached A conspectus of above authoritative pronouncements discloses that the person approaching the Court under Article WPNo.3323 of2023 material facts. If there is suppression of facts, the Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without going into merits of the matter. the country was held to be a material fact, the suppression of which disentitled her to the relief claimed [Ibid]. Again when in earlier proceedings before this Court, the appellant had undertaken that it would not carry on the manufacture of liquor as its distillery and the proceedings before this Court were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ petition for renewal of the licence to manufacture liquor at the same distillery before the High Court was held to have been initiated for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court [State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 431: AIR 1977 SC 781]. Similarly, a challenge to an order fixing the price was rejected because the petitioners had suppressed the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the petitioners and the Government relating i to the fixation of price and that the impugned order had been replaced by another order [Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575:1983 SCC (Cri) 872: AIR 1983 SC 1015].” suppressing the material facts, this Court does not find any illegality in the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. the Court by 22. Authority, Amaravati I //// ^1- As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. M.SRINIVAS assistan-Aregistrar To, SECTfSrOFFICER 2 Two vaprasad Reddy Venati. Advocate [OPUC] [^UT?^ Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Two CD Copies AL g* Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be payable to the Andhra Pradesh State legal Service within a period of four weeks. There are no merits in the writ petition and writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
HIGH COURT DATED:06/07/2023 ORDER WP.No.3323 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS ^andh^ 30 SEP® sj ^^5!feL£esPATCv;g^^
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.