IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.23621 of 2009 Between: Gulf Oil Corporation Limited, (formerly India Detonators Limited), (formerly IDL Chemicals Limited), (formerly IDL Industries Limited) Kukatpally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.23621 OF 2009 ORDER: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments had taken notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao had taken notice on behalf of respondent No.5 and requested time to get instructions. 2. The matter is coming up for admission. 3. Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that the order under challenge was made in undue haste, without recording any reason whatsoever, and atleast without ordering notice to the proposed parties. The said procedure adopted being illegal, the further proceedings in O.A.No.21 of 2008 to be stayed. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Government may not be a necessary party, the said order was made. 5. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 also would maintain that the documents, if any, which are being relied upon by the petitioner may be marked as exhibits and for that purpose there is no need of adding the Government as a party and inasmuch as the further proceedings would be further delayed, the said order had been made and hence the writ petition be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order made in I.A.No.10 of 2009 in O.A.No.21 of 2008, dated 04.07.2009 by respondent No.3 and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to stay all further proceedings including the hearing of O.A.No.21 of 2008 pending before respondent No.3 herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 7. The Managing Director of Gulf Oil Corporation Limited had shown to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the Indian Detonators Limited was incorporated on 20.04.1961. The name of “Indian Detonators Limited” was changed to that of “IDL Chemicals Limited” with effect from 14.05.1974. Thereafter, the name was again changed from “IDL Chemicals Limited” to “IDL Industries Limited” with effect from 31.10.1995. Once again the name of the company was changed from that of “IDL Chemicals Limited” to “ Gulf Oil Corporation Limited” with effect from 22.08.2002. The change of name was effected in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 8. It is also further stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the activity of manufacturing “explosives and accessories” and it had got all the requisite licenses and permissions to do so from the Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India, Nagpur. The detonators/accessories manufacturing unit of the company is located at Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The explosive products manufactured by the petitioner company are widely used in connection with the mining of coal, iron ore, copper, other minerals and infrastructure as well as special products for defence of the nation. Incidentally, Coal India Limited, Singareni Collieries Company Limited and other mining industries in the Public Sector (NMDC, SAIL etc.,) and private sector depend upon the petitioner for supply of explosives and accessories. The petitioner company, in a big way, is contributing to the nation building activity and also provides employment to about 2,000 persons at Kukatpally, Hyderabad alone. 9. It is also further stated that the petitioner company as on date is in possession of Ac.535-06 guntas of land situated at Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is in possession of the said extent of land being the lessee of respondent No.5 Mutt. In addition to the said extent, the petitioner is also in possession of Ac.152-03 guntas of land in the very same village as owner and possessor. The said extent was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the benefit of the petitioner company herein. The petitioner is also owner to an extent of Ac.134-02 guntas, which was alienated in its favour by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the same is also in possession of the petitioner. The said extent was alienated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on payment of market value. In all, the company is in possession of Ac.821-11 guntas of land in Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, out of which Ac.535-06 guntas, is under lease with respondent No.5. The said lease is for a period of 99 years. The first lease deed with respondent No.5 was executed on 23.07.1964 followed by two more lease deeds dated 14.09.1966 and 21.03.1969. The Lease Deeds so entered into by the petitioner herein with respondent No.5 - Mutt were based upon a Memorandum bearing No.3939/E.III/63-4, Home (Endowments-III) Department, dated 24.02.1964. Incidentally, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had also issued an executive fiat vide G.O.Ms.No.529, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 10.05.1976 resulting in execution of another lease deed dated 20.04.1978. 10. It is further stated that the provisions of Chapter V of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Amendment Act, 2007 deals with Mutts and specifically endowments attached thereto. 11. It is also stated that respondent No.5 gave a complaint dated 29.10.2007 to respondent No.3. Alleging that as no action had been taken on the complaint, the said respondent No.5 had approached this Court in W.P.No.9681 of 2008. To the said writ petition, a counter had also been placed before this Court. This Court by Order dated 11.11.2008 made the following Order: “ (a) The jurisdiction of the authorities concerned under Section 83 of the Act as it stood before the amendment through Act No.33 of 2007, shall remain in tact and it shall be competent for them to adjudicate the matter as usual till the Tribunal provided for under Section 162 of Act 30 of 1987 is constituted. (b) The State Government shall endeavour to constitute the Tribunal, as early as possible.” 12. It is also stated that after this Court passed the Order referred to herein in the above writ petition, the matter was taken on file by respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, by numbering the case as O.A.No.21 of 2008 and a copy of the said O.A. had also been placed before this Court. To the said Original Application, a counter affidavit had been filed. The said O.A. is pending adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. Pending the same, the petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A.No.6 of 2009. To the said I.A., a counter affidavit had been filed by respondent No.5. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, heard the matter and passed the Order in I.A.No.6 of 2009 in O.A.No.21 of 2008 on 15.06.2009. The said order had been assailed before this Court in W.P.No.12616 of 2009 by seeking the following relief: “…. it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order made in I.A.No.6 of 2009 in O.A.No.21 of 2008 dated 15.06.2009 by the third respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the Lease Deeds dated 23.07.1964, 14.09.1966, 21.03.1969 and 20.04.1978 executed in favour of the petitioner and consequently stay all further proceedings including the hearing of O.A.No.21 of 2008 pending before the 3rd respondent herein; and to pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 13. Along with the said writ petition, an application vide W.P.MP.No.16319 of 2009 had been filed praying for the following relief: “It is also prayed that Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the hearing of O.A.No.21 of 2008 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition; and to pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 14. This Court admitted the said writ petition and ordered notice in the miscellaneous application. A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had also been placed before this Court. 15. It is also stated that since the leases that had been granted in favour of the petitioner were with the concurrence of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner filed an application I.A.No.10 of 2009 in O.A.No.21 of 2008. A counter affidavit is also placed before this Court. Respondent No.3 herein heard the matter and made the following docket order on 04.07.2009: “Both the counsels are present. The counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter in I.A. Heard arguments. I.A. is closed as Govt. is not necessary party to the O.A.” 16. It is this Order that is being assailed in the instant writ petition as arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Several of the contentions which have been advanced by the counsel on record Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, representing unofficial respondent, need not be entertained by this court any further, for the reason that this Court is thoroughly satisfied that respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad had not made a reasoned order, even if the respective stands taken by the parties in this regard are to be taken into consideration. 17. Hence, without expressing any further opinion and other merits and demerits, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.3 to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. 18. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao pleads urgency and would maintain that only with a view to cause further delay, such application had been thought of. It is needless to say that respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate order at the earliest point of time in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J November 5, 2009 MD