By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov. 27: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday asked the state government to explain under what authority it asked the Obulapuram Mining Company to stop its operations without issuing it notice or hearing its version.
A division bench comprising Justice T. Meena Kumari and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar raised the question with the advocate-general, Mr D. Seetharam Murthy, while dealing with a petition filed by OMC challenging the Government Order of November 25 suspending mining operations and transportation of iron ore.
“The lease given to the OMC is in accordance with a statute and your suspension order too should be in accordance with a statute,” said the bench.
Though the AG said the state had inherent power to act instantaneously, the Bench did not accept that. Mr K. Raghavacharyulu, the senior counsel for OMC, said a member of the SC’s central empowered committee had written to the government ordering it to stop the OMC operations and the government blindly obeyed it. Mr Raghava-charyulu urged the court to allow OMC to lift the leftover iron ore. While the AG said that OMC can lift the stock by paying Rs 6 crore per day, OMC said it can pay Rs 2.25 crore per day.
The Bench asked OMC to deposit a lumpsum guarantee of Rs 30 crore with the director of mines for the next two weeks.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy moves AP High Court on AP order
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Nov. 26: The Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) run by the Karnataka minister, Mr Gali Janardhan Reddy, on Thursday approached the AP High Court challenging an order issued by the government stopping the company from undertaking mining activity at Anantapur.
The petition also challenges the government decision to stop transportation of iron ore from the mines at Ananthapur.
It was on Wednesday that the AP industries secretary, Mr M. Veerabhadraiah, issued the order on the basis of the reports by an empowered committed of the Supreme Court and a three-member forest officials’ committee. OMC has been facing allegations of illegal mining activity.
Mr B.V. Srinivasa Reddy, managing director of the company, filed the petition contending that the order of the government was unconstitutional.
According to the petitioner, the CEC advised to stop mining operations and transportation of already mined material, but the state government went further and stopped even transportation of material from the stockyard of the company which was away from the lease area. Mr Reddy urged the court to suspend the operation of the government order (GO) and declare it as illegal.
Mr Gali Janardhan Reddy had said on Wednesday that mining activities at OMC would not be suspended at any cost.
Hyderabad,Nov. 26: The Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) run by the Karnataka minister, Mr Gali Janardhan Reddy, on Thursday approached the AP High Court challenging an order issued by the government stopping the company from undertaking mining activity at Anantapur.
The petition also challenges the government decision to stop transportation of iron ore from the mines at Ananthapur.
It was on Wednesday that the AP industries secretary, Mr M. Veerabhadraiah, issued the order on the basis of the reports by an empowered committed of the Supreme Court and a three-member forest officials’ committee. OMC has been facing allegations of illegal mining activity.
Mr B.V. Srinivasa Reddy, managing director of the company, filed the petition contending that the order of the government was unconstitutional.
According to the petitioner, the CEC advised to stop mining operations and transportation of already mined material, but the state government went further and stopped even transportation of material from the stockyard of the company which was away from the lease area. Mr Reddy urged the court to suspend the operation of the government order (GO) and declare it as illegal.
Mr Gali Janardhan Reddy had said on Wednesday that mining activities at OMC would not be suspended at any cost.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Ananthapur Mining Corporation can continue mining ore: AP High Court
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov. 19: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday suspended an order issued by Mr Kallol Biswas, the divisional forest officer (DFO) of Anantapur restraining the Anantapur Mining Corporation from mining iron ore at Obulapuram.
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy granted the interim order while dealing with a petition filed by Ms G. Lakshmi Aruna, wife of mining baron Mr Gali
Janardhan Reddy, challenging the divisional forest officer’s order.
The judge said that the DFO’s order issued on October 30 was not intended to force the petitioner to obtain permission for transporting the extracted iron ore.
“Instead it directed the petitioner to stop mining and this cannot be approved,” he said.
While allowing Anantapur Mining Corporation to continue mining operations, the judge directed the company to transport the extracted material only after getting permission from the forest authority
The judge agreed with the contention of senior counsel Mr S. Ramachandra Rao, who appeared for the petitioner, that matters relating to mining operations fell under the purview of the Central government, and did not rest with the forest officer. However, the court did not agree with him regarding the transit permit.
After admitting the petition, Justice Reddy asked the respondents to file their counters and posted the matter to two weeks for further hearing.
Meanwhile, Bellary Iron Ores Pvt Ltd, the arch rival of Gali Janardhana Reddy, on Thursday filed a petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the state and Central governments to stop the alleged illegal mining by the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) in the areas allotted to them.
The petitioner also sought a direction for a joint survey by various agencies to be conducted in the mining terrain of these two companies to demarcate their respective areas.
Hyderabad, Nov. 19: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday suspended an order issued by Mr Kallol Biswas, the divisional forest officer (DFO) of Anantapur restraining the Anantapur Mining Corporation from mining iron ore at Obulapuram.
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy granted the interim order while dealing with a petition filed by Ms G. Lakshmi Aruna, wife of mining baron Mr Gali
Janardhan Reddy, challenging the divisional forest officer’s order.
The judge said that the DFO’s order issued on October 30 was not intended to force the petitioner to obtain permission for transporting the extracted iron ore.
“Instead it directed the petitioner to stop mining and this cannot be approved,” he said.
While allowing Anantapur Mining Corporation to continue mining operations, the judge directed the company to transport the extracted material only after getting permission from the forest authority
The judge agreed with the contention of senior counsel Mr S. Ramachandra Rao, who appeared for the petitioner, that matters relating to mining operations fell under the purview of the Central government, and did not rest with the forest officer. However, the court did not agree with him regarding the transit permit.
After admitting the petition, Justice Reddy asked the respondents to file their counters and posted the matter to two weeks for further hearing.
Meanwhile, Bellary Iron Ores Pvt Ltd, the arch rival of Gali Janardhana Reddy, on Thursday filed a petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the state and Central governments to stop the alleged illegal mining by the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) in the areas allotted to them.
The petitioner also sought a direction for a joint survey by various agencies to be conducted in the mining terrain of these two companies to demarcate their respective areas.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
AP High Court will writ against AP Chief Minister Mr K Rosaiah
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Nov. 11: The AP High Court on Wednesday commenced hearing on a writ of quo warranto filed against the appointment of Mr K. Rosaiah as Chief Minister.
During the hearing, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy will decide whether or not the writ can be admitted for final adjudication. The bench also will deal with a question of whether or not the Governor can be made party in such a writ.
Senior counsel, Mr S. Ramachandra Rao, contended on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Bezwada Gopal Reddy, that the government was not a competent authority to defend Mr Rosaiah, it is for the Chief Minister to explain his stand in a writ of quo warranto.
Mr Rao found fault with the counter affidavit filed by the chief secretary, saying that the officer cannot speak for the Governor with particular reference to how the the Governor chose Mr Rosaiah as Chief Minister since it was a personal decision.
“It is the Governor who alone can explain,” he said.
He stated that the Chief Secretary cannot do it and he can not depose
for such personal- knowledge for the Governor.
He contended that when the Chief Minister himself is saying that he
was appointed by the Congress high command , it was Governor alone
who can admit or deny it , but not the Chief Secretary.
Mr Rao argued that it was for the respondents to explain why Congress
Legislature Party meeting was not being held, even though more than
two months have passed after demise of Dr Y S Rajasekhar Reddy.
He contended that it was for Mr Rosaiah to show under what authority
he holds the office, even though he admittedly does not have
Legislative approval.
The bench will continue its hearing on Thursday after lunch session
Hyderabad,Nov. 11: The AP High Court on Wednesday commenced hearing on a writ of quo warranto filed against the appointment of Mr K. Rosaiah as Chief Minister.
During the hearing, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy will decide whether or not the writ can be admitted for final adjudication. The bench also will deal with a question of whether or not the Governor can be made party in such a writ.
Senior counsel, Mr S. Ramachandra Rao, contended on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Bezwada Gopal Reddy, that the government was not a competent authority to defend Mr Rosaiah, it is for the Chief Minister to explain his stand in a writ of quo warranto.
Mr Rao found fault with the counter affidavit filed by the chief secretary, saying that the officer cannot speak for the Governor with particular reference to how the the Governor chose Mr Rosaiah as Chief Minister since it was a personal decision.
“It is the Governor who alone can explain,” he said.
He stated that the Chief Secretary cannot do it and he can not depose
for such personal- knowledge for the Governor.
He contended that when the Chief Minister himself is saying that he
was appointed by the Congress high command , it was Governor alone
who can admit or deny it , but not the Chief Secretary.
Mr Rao argued that it was for the respondents to explain why Congress
Legislature Party meeting was not being held, even though more than
two months have passed after demise of Dr Y S Rajasekhar Reddy.
He contended that it was for Mr Rosaiah to show under what authority
he holds the office, even though he admittedly does not have
Legislative approval.
The bench will continue its hearing on Thursday after lunch session
Saturday, November 7, 2009
AP High Court asks for action taken on ACB cases
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov. 6: The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s functioning came under the scanner of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday. It trained its guns on the way the ACB operates and government’s interference in its affairs.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy fired its first salvo when it sought a status report on the cases registered by the ACB in the last five years.
The bench told the ACB and the general administration department to file their report in two weeks stating the number of cases the ACB had recommended to the government for prosecution of corrupt officials, the number of cases in which the government gave permission for prosecution and the cases dropped against officials.
The bench was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by an advocate, Mr D. Linga Rao, who sought an effective set-up to be put in place for uprooting corruption.
Mr Rao asked the court to direct the state government to set up a nodal agency vested with powers to continuously monitor the implementation of developmental and welfare programmes of the state.
The bench pointed out to him that while setting up a nodal agency to control corruption in all government departments was his idea, there was every possibility of that agency itself turning corrupt.
The bench asked the advocate who will control the controller in such a case.
The petitioner cited a recent order of the High Court, which sought a uniform policy to be followed by the government in its approach towards those government staff and officials charged with corruption cases.
Mr Ravikiran Rao, counsel for the ACB, told the court that they were finding it embarrassing to keep quiet when the government issues withdrawal (of prosecution) orders at the fag-end of its corruption trials.
When the petitioner tried to raise corruption charges against certain government departments like mining, the bench asked him to raise them only after making the authorities concerned parties to this litigation.
The petitioner wanted the court to direct the authorities to strengthen the hands of ACB. He also sought a direction to the state that it should not resort to needless interference in the affairs of ACB.
Hyderabad, Nov. 6: The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s functioning came under the scanner of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday. It trained its guns on the way the ACB operates and government’s interference in its affairs.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy fired its first salvo when it sought a status report on the cases registered by the ACB in the last five years.
The bench told the ACB and the general administration department to file their report in two weeks stating the number of cases the ACB had recommended to the government for prosecution of corrupt officials, the number of cases in which the government gave permission for prosecution and the cases dropped against officials.
The bench was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by an advocate, Mr D. Linga Rao, who sought an effective set-up to be put in place for uprooting corruption.
Mr Rao asked the court to direct the state government to set up a nodal agency vested with powers to continuously monitor the implementation of developmental and welfare programmes of the state.
The bench pointed out to him that while setting up a nodal agency to control corruption in all government departments was his idea, there was every possibility of that agency itself turning corrupt.
The bench asked the advocate who will control the controller in such a case.
The petitioner cited a recent order of the High Court, which sought a uniform policy to be followed by the government in its approach towards those government staff and officials charged with corruption cases.
Mr Ravikiran Rao, counsel for the ACB, told the court that they were finding it embarrassing to keep quiet when the government issues withdrawal (of prosecution) orders at the fag-end of its corruption trials.
When the petitioner tried to raise corruption charges against certain government departments like mining, the bench asked him to raise them only after making the authorities concerned parties to this litigation.
The petitioner wanted the court to direct the authorities to strengthen the hands of ACB. He also sought a direction to the state that it should not resort to needless interference in the affairs of ACB.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
CM floor test does not arise, says Governor
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Nov. 4: The Governor on Tuesday told the AP High Court that the Chief Minster, Mr K. Rosaiah, taking a floor test does not arise as no legislator or group of legislators has claimed majority support in the Assembly
Mr P. Ramaknath Reddy, the chief secretary, filed a counter on behalf of the Governor stating that he was authorised by the Governor to bring those facts before the High Court.
The counter affidavit was filed pursuant to a direction of the court on a interim petition filed by Bezavada Govinda Reddy seeking an order to implead the Governor as a respondent in a writ of quo warranto filed against the appointment of Mr K Rosaiah as Chief Minister.
The Governor submitted that he had appointed Mr K. Rosaiah in exercise of his discretion under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution after taking into account the circumstances existing at the time of appointment.
According to the affidavit, the Governor has not so far fixed any time limit for holding the floor test in the Legislative Assembly to establish the confidence of the House in Mr Rosaiah.
The counter affidavit said that the contention of the petitioner that the Governor appointed Mr Rosaiah as Chief Minister at the instance of third party without using his personal discretion was not correct.
The Governor contended that the impleading petition was not maintainable in view of the bar under Article 361 of the Constitution.
Hyderabad,Nov. 4: The Governor on Tuesday told the AP High Court that the Chief Minster, Mr K. Rosaiah, taking a floor test does not arise as no legislator or group of legislators has claimed majority support in the Assembly
Mr P. Ramaknath Reddy, the chief secretary, filed a counter on behalf of the Governor stating that he was authorised by the Governor to bring those facts before the High Court.
The counter affidavit was filed pursuant to a direction of the court on a interim petition filed by Bezavada Govinda Reddy seeking an order to implead the Governor as a respondent in a writ of quo warranto filed against the appointment of Mr K Rosaiah as Chief Minister.
The Governor submitted that he had appointed Mr K. Rosaiah in exercise of his discretion under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution after taking into account the circumstances existing at the time of appointment.
According to the affidavit, the Governor has not so far fixed any time limit for holding the floor test in the Legislative Assembly to establish the confidence of the House in Mr Rosaiah.
The counter affidavit said that the contention of the petitioner that the Governor appointed Mr Rosaiah as Chief Minister at the instance of third party without using his personal discretion was not correct.
The Governor contended that the impleading petition was not maintainable in view of the bar under Article 361 of the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)