Prakash Kothari v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.13876 of 2010 ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing permits to the petitioner for transport of white clay during the subsistence of lease as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

On 09.11.2012, it is stated, the lease period expired and the petitioner applied for renewal and the same was not received by the 2nd respondent on the ground of pendency of the instant writ petition. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that petitioner is entitled for consideration of his application for renewal of lease and the same was not even received by the 2nd respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner requests the Court to direct the respondents to receive the application of the petitioner and process the same in accordance with the extant rules. Without expressing view on the merits or entitlement of the petitioner for renewal of lease, keeping in view the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and to meet the ends of justice, I am satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order. The petitioner is given liberty to submit application for renewal of lease by enclosing a copy of this order within four (4) weeks from

SVB, J W.P.No.13876 of 2010 today. The respondents are given liberty and discretion to consider and act on the request of the petitioners for renewal in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits or entitlement of the petitioner in this behalf. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_____________ S.V. BHATT, J February 1, 2017 MRR