The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.33613 of 2014 Dated 18.11.2014 Between:
M/s.Aurelia Laterite Mining Private Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director, P.Ramakrishna …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs.N.Shoba Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4, in interfering with the transportation of mineral laterite from the puntha road between Vanthada and Rowthupalem in pursuance of mining lease granted vide G.O.Ms.No.283, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 27-10-2007, initially in favour of one S.Soban Babu, and later transferred in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.40 Industries and Commerce (M.IV) Department, dated 01-02-2014, and demanding payment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 Environment Forests Science & Technology (For.I) Department, dated 06-02-2010, as illegal and arbitrary.
This case was adjourned on two occasions at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Forests. As no instructions have been reported by him, this Court has ordered the personal appearance of respondent Nos.2 and 4. Accordingly, they are personally present.
Today, at the hearing, respondent Nos.2 and 4 have stated that the road, which is being used by the petitioner for transportation of mineral, is intended to be used by a few inhabitants of the reserve forest only and that therefore, the petitioner was orally asked not to transport mineral through the said road.
Smt.N.Shoba, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that, while the road in question is a public way, even assuming that the same is a semi- public way intended for a section of people, respondent No.3 has no power or authority to stop transportation through the same unless a convenient substitute way for being used for that purpose is shown.
At the hearing, respondent No.3 has stated that no alternative way is available for transportation.
In my opinion, respondent Nos.2 and 4 cannot abruptly stop transportation of mineral through the road in question, which was admittedly being permitted to be used since the year 2007. If these respondents find any legally sustainable objection for usage of the said road by the petitioner, the least that is expected of them is to issue a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why it shall not be prevented from using the same and pass appropriate order in writing, after considering the explanation, if any, that may be submitted by the petitioner. As this procedure is not followed, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are restrained from preventing the petitioner from transporting the mineral through the above-mentioned road.
However, this order would not preclude respondent No.2 from issuing a notice as referred above and following the due process of law.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.42044 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th November, 2014
LUR