1. The state of Telangana v. Chimpula Shailaja

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.1638 of 2OL7 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellants; and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Buchi Reddy Chimpula, learned counsel for respondents No. I and 2.

2. This intra court appeal takes exception to the order dated O5.O7.2017 passed in W.P.No.7176 of 2017. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.255, dated 02.08.2001, providing apportionmentlratio of seigniorage fee for Gram Palchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads. The previous percentage prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.335, dated 06.O8.1996, stood modilied. \ ( ..., 2

4. Respo:rdent No.2 (writ petitioner No.2) obtairrecl information under the R ght to Information Act, 2005, that during, the period between 2006 rtrd August, 2076, tLre seigniorage fee crollected for mining done in Hyderabad and Tandur (erstwhile Rzurga Reddy District) am(,unted to Rs.572,54,98,O8O1- (Rupees Firze Hundred and Seventy Tuo Crores, Fifty Four Lakhs, Ninety Eight Thousand and Eighry only). Respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as, "the writ petitioners") submitted that froin the seip;niorage fee collected, only Rs.9,14,02,900/- was given to the Gram Panchayats, Rs.18,, 17,8O,9OO/- was given to Maldd Parishads and Rs. 12,33,06,150/- was given to Zilla Parishads aitogether totaling to Rs,.39,64,17,950l- out of Rs.572 ,54,98,080 / -.

5. The u'r:t pe,titioners (wife and husband), claiming themselves as ZWC Mr'mb:r, Chevella Mandal, ald President, Telangana Panchayat Raj Ohamber, frled W.P.No.7116 of 2017 ,:hallenging the inaction cf :he appellants herein, who were respondents No.2 to 6 in the w'rit petition, 1n distributing the seigniorage fee collected frorn the mining activities done in the erstu'hile Ranga Reddy Distrir:t b,:tween the period 2006 and, August, '-)016. It ig pointed out -hat Ranga Reddy District was later bifu:rcated into( 3 three districts, namely Ranga Reddy, Vikarabad and Medchal. The writ petitioners prayed for a proportional distribution of the collected seigniorage fee to these newly formed districts as per G.O.Ms.No.255, dated 02.08.200 1

6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and opined that the writ petitioners a-re persons interested in a communit5r property or a common property in a representative capacity and further directed the appellants to release the seigniorage fee proportionately to the said Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zllla Parishad within stipulated time. CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS:

7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned order of the learned Single Judge by contending that before the writ Court, the State could not get proper and effective opportunity to defend itself. He submits that formal notices were never issued in W.P.No.7116 of

2017. In motion hearing itself on 21.06.2017, the matter was heard in part and thereafter, counter was directed to be filed. a 4 Before the c tunter could be filed, the matter was e[lowed on O5.O7.2017. The right to file the counter was never closed. The matter was n3ver posted under the caption "for final hr:aring". It was neither lreald nor decided with the condent of tlre parties. Thus, the Stz-te rnay be permitted to frle the counter and defend the matter elfectively, more so, when huge financial liability is involved in th: m:etter.

8. The ne;:t submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is b1, anticipating the argument of the learned r.ounsel for the writ petit,one rs when the order of the learned Sin gle Judge was not com clierl with and the contempt petition weLs filed in C.C.No.1048 of 1)018, the learned Speciat Governmerrt pleader made a state nert on 30.11.2018 in the said contempt petition that the Govelnrrent was going to implement the orcler r,rrithin four weeks. It is srLbmitted that such a concession/ statemen t made by the learned Specirrl Government Pleader without instruc_ions does not operate ies estoppel nor it binds his clients. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme C-ourt in Hirrralayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. \ I t,, 5 Balwan Singhr and Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahooz. 9 . The locus standi of the writ petitioners was seriously called in question during the course of arguments. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that to maintain a regular writ petition under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India, the minimum requirement was to establish that the writ petitioners a-re "persons aggrieved". No amount of necessar5r pleadings were made in the writ affidavit to show any such locus stqndi or highlight that the writ petitioners are "persons aggrieved". Thus, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. The writ petition of this kind, which may be of a nature of a public interest litigation, cannot be decided by the learned Single Judge. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Savlo Rama Porobo v. Union of Indiae. In addition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mario Cabral E SA+ and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court '1zots; r scc :z: '(2019) lo scc 674 ' 1987 SCC Online Bom 410 : 1989 Mah Ll 52',1 (r-eszr: scc zoz / l 6 in Gram Parrchayat, Maddur, Kakkipadu Mandal v, State of Andhra Pradr:shl;.

10. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the writ petition filerl by the writ petitioners was 1n the nature of interpleader suit, u,hich could not have been entertained CONTENTIONI OF THE UIRIT PETITIONERS:

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners op,posed the prayer and c on:r:nded that the writ Court has giver.. fu1l and proper opporr uni ty to the State to file the counter. Fleliance is placed on thg o::der dated 21.06.2017 passed bv the learned Single Judge. In addition, it is argued that a_fter havirrg given a conscious stat emont before the Bench dealing with C.C.lIo.1O4B of 2018, the wri. appeal has lost the significance and is liable to be dismissed on r.his score alone.

72. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as pe,r Rule 12 of the Writ Prccet:dings Rules, 1977, the opportunity pr-ovided to the State in vrit proceedings must be treated to be an adequate opportunity. 'lht: u,rit appeal is continuation of the wrir_ petition. ' 1997 SCC Online A)'70.t ts97 (6) ALD49 7 The writ petitioners are office bearers of the respective bodies and they had locus standi. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the previous orders in Ghanpur Gram Panchayat v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.Nos.20344 of 2OlO, dated 28.O3.2011) and Chundru Mangayamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.18336 of 2010 dated 28.O9.2OlOl. The previous orders, in the absence of challenge, attained finality. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugreed order. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalioro and Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v Smt. Chhotiz. L,earned Senior Counsel reiterated that the opportunity given was sufficient. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Ram v. Jyoti Prasada and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Jagdish v. Aam Janta Pachalag. u (1987) I scc 5 'lteeo; t scc zoo '1zor ry z scc otz ' zota SCC onLine Raj 5992 \ ) ) i 8 r'1,

13. The learne:rl counsel for the parties have confined their arguments tc tLu: extent indicated above and no oth(: r point is pressed.

14. We havr: h,:ard the learned counsel for the parties; at length and perused the lecord FINDINGS:

15. In the fitnr:r;s of things, we deem it proper to firsl deal with the contention of the learned Additional Advocatc General appearing for tht: appellants which goes to the root of thr: matter

16. The question is whether the learned Single Judge has given adequate opp:rt;nity to the State to hle the counter and whether the proceedings cf the learned Single Judge shorn, ary 1>rocedural impropriety. It is apt to reproduce the entire proceeding sheet in the writ petiti rn, 'vhich reads thus: "HI,GH I]OURT OF JUDICATURE : HYDERABAD MltlN CASE NO: W.P.No.7ll6 ot 2OL7 PROCEEDING SHEET DAT]' ORDER oL.o3.2Jt',', AVSS.J OFFICE NOTE SL. NO 1 / 9 None appears. Post on O3lO3l17 in the motion list. B/o- INL 2

3.3.2017 AVSS.J Post next week in the adjourned motion list. 13l03 /2or7 AVSS.J Post after ten days t9.06.2017 DT.SSRB J Blo.- B/o- GRK At request, post on 21.06.2017 it motion list. In the meantime, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj to get instructions. Blo. SK JJ 2t.06.2017 DT.SSRB J Heard-in-Part. Post on O4-OT -2017 in motion list for continuation of further hearing and counter under the caPtion 'for orders'. sd/- 6 04 l07 l2ot7 DT.SSRB J At request, post on O5/O7 l2OI7 10 Ln motion list under the same caption. sd/ 7 s/71 7 DT.SSRB J Writ Petition is allowed (vide separate order) Blo. SS"

17. The minrte reading of the aforesaid proceeding sheet shows that on the fi.st clate nobody entered appeanance for the parties. Then the m€tter was posted twice i.e., on 03.03.2017 and 13.O3.2077. !'hereafter, the matter was taken up ott ).9.06.2017. On this date, rhc rnatter was directed to be posted on 2l.06.20IZ in 'motion list'. IrL the meantime, the rearned GovernmerLt pleader for Panchayat Raj was directed to obtain instructions. pausing here for a mornent, it is clear that no formal notices have been issued to the State to file the counter. on 2r.06.2017, iIre matter was ?reard in part'. No finding is recorded whether the State could obtain ir st^rctions or not. It is also not recorded that the matter was "he arrl in part,, and ,,with consent,,. Curiously, while declaring the nratrr:r as ,.heard in part", the counter was directed to be filed. In,rur opinion, the counter needs to be filecl first and .l i I L :., \ thereafter only the matter could be finally heard 'in part' or tn full'. Putting it differently, if without counter and without instructions, the Court intended to decide the matter, it may either close the right to file the counter after giving sr.rfficient opportunity and then hear the matter finally or alternatively hear the matter lrith the consent' without counter and instructions. Interestingly, the orders dated 21.06.2017 and O4.O7.2017 do not reflect that any such procedure was followed. OnO4.O7.2017, the matter was directed to be listed on 05.07.2017 and on that date, the writ petition was allowed. Thus, it is clear as cloudless slqr that i) notices were never issued to the State for f,rling counter; ii) the Court never closed the right of the State to frle the counter or obtain instructions; iii) the matter was never heard with the consent of the parties; iv) the matter was first 'part heard' on 2I.06.2017 without recording any consent and then a direction was issued for filing the counter and v) the order dated O5.O7.2017 also does not reflect that the matter was heard \rith consent' and the writ petition was allowed on the same date.

18. The aforesaid events show that there exists a procedural flaw in the process. The right to file the counter is a valuable right of I I t 12 r,r defence for rrnl party. The Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh Bhatiro opined as under: "6. Havir considr:r appellan ustified anv opp( bv the rc all the or petition order pa their retr supplr, ol Court giving he from th.e passing r law." rg h eard the learned counsel for the partiers and ng r-f1s fact that return was in fact hot ilecl ty the [s, v/e are of the view that the Hiqh Court was not in lrlorri|rq..the *rit application without aff,Irdi.re ,rtlLnily of filins return to the writ applicatiori-Elea ,spt2rdents..In that view of the matter. we .setis E deri' passed bv the learned Sinele Juaee in thn*rit es yrell as in the rerriew applffin and ak,o th. sseq in the writ appeal. The appellanti sh:tll-fiG uerI ^l a ,trpv of lhis order to the Hieh C;ur-;d tLr.. Hieh ere!,fter, shall dispose of the writ applicatrc,nlE r rin.g to the parties within a period oflhree m.onth" da[r: of filing the return to the writ applicati tn by r roasoned and speaking order in accoidancc with (Emphasis Sr-Lpplied)

19. In our o.tinirtn, the State was deprived of the adecluate and effective opporturLitv to file the counter. The State, r,r.hi1e filing the counter, could har.e made effort to distinguish the previous orders passed in W.P Nos.20344 and 18336 of 2010. In a matter of this nature, where huge financia_l liability may be fastened to the other side, Courts mus: be more cautious in following the principles of natural justice and providing adequate opportunity to the parties. lzooe; t t scc oos I ) 13

20. Another question raised by the writ petitioners is about the order passed in C.C.No.1O48 of 2018. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that any sr.lch concession/ statement given by the'Special Government Pleader will not bind the State (See Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society (supra) and Director of Elernentary Education, Odisha (suPra)). 2L As discussed above, in the instant case, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition without gralting t I adequate opportunity to file the counter. Thus, the order based on such improper proceedings cannot sustain judicial scrutiny' In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to deal with the other points raised by the learned counsel for the parties touching upon the merits, locus standi etc.

22. In the interest of justice, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh Bhati (supra) we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No'7116 of 2Ol7 and restore the said writ petition to its original number. The State shall file its counter \\ t4 o within four wr:eks positively. The writ Court mav hear 1.he parties and decide thr: rr:Ltter afresh. We order accordingly.

23. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed oI' without expressing ang opinion on the merits of the matter. No order as to costs. To, Miscella:reous petitions pending, if any, shall starrd closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI { OINT REGISTRAR usecrtoru oFFrcER \ J

1. The Principal fiecretary, Mines and lndustries And Commerce Department, Secretaria., State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Assistant t)irector, Mines & Geology, Ranga Reddy Distrit:t. 3. The Assistant t)irector, Mines & Geology, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District' 4. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at ! yderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES & GEOLOGY, High Court 'or the State of Telangana at 1-yderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC tc SRI BUCHI REDDY CHIMPULA, Advocate. [OPUq 7. Two CD Copie:; BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 J JUDGMEN'I' WA.No.1638 of 2017 ,-'= .fl - | i. r4 | 17.PnM $( z t a'Ssi: 4 rcHES * { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,/1 4z ? ,/<5