IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 37501 of 2014 BETWEEN Shiva Enterprises and others ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed against the letter, dated 27.10.2014, issued by the second respondent-Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, wherein he has informed the petitioners that their office is unable to issue dispatch permits over the subject mining lease held by the petitioners in SPSR Nellore District. The said letter is purportedly issued by the Assistant Director in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L.No.202 of 2013, vide order, dated 17.06.2013. Since the petitioners,
inter alia, alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology was required to get instructions.
3. Today, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that even according to the petitioners, they do not have the clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) and as such, the impugned letter is inconformity with the directions of the Division Bench.
4. Though it is true that the petitioners do not have the clearance from MOEF, it may be for the respondent authorities to take that into consideration while considering as to whether continuation of the petitioners’ lease any further is warranted. The directions of the Division Bench in the aforesaid P.I.L. specifically state as follows:
“The report of the A.P. Pollution Control Board is not challenged. Hence, we accept the same to be accurate and relevant. We, therefore, direct the Director of Mines and Geology to take steps forthwith for closure of the illegal mining operation undertaken by the unofficial respondents as well as others, after giving notice to them. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.”
5. It is noticed that the Division Bench directed the Director of Mines and Geology to take appropriate action for closure of illegal mining operations undertaken by the unofficial respondents in P.I.L. or others by giving notice. The impugned letter, inter alia, is however, not issued by the Director of Mines and Geology but by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. Secondly, there was admittedly no notice to the petitioners and the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned letter. It appears that the impugned letter was issued allegedly in order to report compliance with the directions of the Division Bench. This Court, therefore, cannot sustain such order.
6. Accordingly, the impugned letter, dated 27.10.2014 issued by the second respondent is quashed. This order will, however, does not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action against the petitioners, if warranted, however, in terms of the directions of the Division Bench.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 5, 2014 LMV