Court accepted counsel's submission that quarrying operations were already stopped and dispatch permits ceased by authorities. Petition was closed without passing any order based on instructions received from counter affidavits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
W.P.NO.10852 OF 2021
ORDER :-
This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the instructions of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.Memo No.3882181/D4/2020, dated 26-03-2021 in permitting the 5th respondent to continue the quarrying operations over an extent of 2.023 Hectares in Sy.No.410-7 of G.Donthamuru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently to direct the respondents to stop the 5th respondent from conducting quarrying operations in respect of the said property.
The case of the petitioners succinctly is thus:-
The land of the petitioners is covered by gravel and on the request of the 5th respondent, the first petitioner executed a lease agreement. According to agreement, the lease is for a period of five years w.e.f 19-09-2016. The said agreement was an unregistered one. Similarly, the second petitioner also entered into a lease agreement with the 5th respondent on 19-09-2016 with similar terms and conditions as that of the first petitioner’s lease agreement. The 5th respondent applied for quarry lease to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent granted quarry lease for gravel for an extent of 2.023 Hectares in Sy.No.410-7 situated in G.Donthamuru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District vide proceedings bearing No.6/Q1/2017. Thereafter, work order has been issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings, dated 25-012018 and lease deed was executed between the 4th and 5th respondents. While so, 5th respondent started violating the conditions of lease, doing quarry operations to a deeper level and thus making the land unfit for cultivation. The main intention of leasing the land by the petitioners is to
2
remove the over burden of gravel in their lands and make fit for cultivation. Having noticed that the 5th respondent is violating the conditions, the 4th respondent ordered for a survey and a survey was conducted on 29-08-2018 by the Surveyor and report was submitted. The 4th respondent after verification of the records found that the 5th respondent obtained dispatch permits for a quantity of 24,800 Cum only from the date of granting quarry lease and thus came to a conclusion that 5th respondent excavated and transported excess quantity of about 48,808 Cum of gravel from the leased area in violation of Rule 34(1) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966. A demand notice was also issued to the 5th respondent, against which a revision was filed by the 5th respondent. While so, the 4th respondent submitted proposals for determination of the lease of the 5th respondent and in that context 5th respondent filed W.P.No.7006 of 2020 wherein this court passed the order directing the 3rd respondent therein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner therein and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner therein, pass an appropriate order. Since no order was passed as directed in W.P.No.7006 of 2020 and taking action for determination of the lease of the 5th respondent, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the counter of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the authorities have stopped issuing the dispatch permits to the 5th respondent and issued directions on 16-06-2021 to stop the quarrying operations. He would therefore submit that in view of the contents in the counter, there is no need to pass any further orders in the writ petition and the writ petition may be closed.
3
Accordingly, recording the above said submission, this writ petition is
closed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in
consequence.
________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
17th NOVEMBER,2021 TSNR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requiring closure on instruction of authorities needs a declaratory order under Article 226.
Whether the quarrying operations by the 5th respondent should be declared illegal and stopped.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner(s)
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4
5th Respondent
3rd Respondent
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
