IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18822 of 2011 Date: 22.12.2014 Between:
Annam Sivaiah & another.
… Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18822 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed in the year 2011 for the following relief;
“… to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 11 in permitting the 12th respondent to illegally conduct quarry operations beyond the area notified by the Groundwater Department, further permitting the 12th respondent to use machinery for conducting quarry operations though the reach is notified for quarrying through means of boats in Amaravathi Mandal limits, permitting removal of sand more than one meter depth, as arbitrary, illegal, failure to exercise power and jurisdiction, violative of Tender Conditions, violative of the work order, violative of the conditions in the confirmation order, violative of the terms of lease deed, violative of Rule 9-X of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, violative of Rule 23 of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, against the public interest, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 11 to restrain the 12th respondent from using machinery, removing sand more than one meter depth, to conduct quarry operations in the area permitted by the Groundwater Department.”
It is thus clear that the grievance in this writ petition is in relation to the illegal mining. At that point of time the unofficial respondent was having a lease granted in his favour till 31.03.2012. It is not impossible that after obtaining the lawful lease one may resort to illegal mining in various ways and means. At present, the lease period is over.
The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submits that unofficial respondent after expiry of lease is not carrying out any mining operation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions either to refute or accept the statement made by the learned Advocate General.
In any view of the matter, we cannot presume that one would carry out mining operation without having any valid lease or permission, unless, it is placed before us with complete material. Noting prayer made in the writ petition, this Court passed interim order on 21.03.2012 recording action on the part of the Government taken against unofficial respondent – 12th respondent, but the same did not reach to its logical conclusion.
Under these circumstances, we direct the State Government to take a final decision pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court against the 12th respondent. It is true that the lease period in question is over but if any illegality has been done by the 12th respondent during the subsistence of the lease period the same has to be remedied irrespective of its status as on today. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that now the lease of quarrying of sand is being granted strictly following the rules and regulations.
Accordingly, we close the writ petition asking the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to look into the problem of quarrying of sand in any manner. The interim order dated 21.03.2012 passed by this Court shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 22.12.2014 ES/gbs