Disposed

Choppara Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2021WP/1170/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging temporary permissions granted to an unofficial respondent to excavate gravel, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21, lack of notice, and laches. The court directed the court to consider objections before granting future permissions.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit written objections with documentary evidence; directed respondent authorities to consider said objections before granting future permissions to respondent No.7 or any ot

Choppara Sridevi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1170 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“……..pleased to declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Copy of proceeding No.PR07112005600001, dated 02.01.2021 Copy of memo No.7414/D72020 07-12-2020 Copy of memo No.3036/TPGNT/2020 11.12.2020 through which temporary permission is granted to the unofficial respondent to excavate the gravel in Sy.Nos.15-1 & 15-2 of Kolakaluru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently cancel the same by directing the respondents to prevent the 7^th respondent from excavating the gravel in Sy.Nos.15-1 & 15-2 of Kolakaluru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District and to pass……..”

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

¶7

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 has contended that the writ petition is filed after lapse of time granted in the impugned orders. The impugned orders were passed giving temporary permits to respondent No.7 to excavate the gravel from the subject land from 02.01.2021 to 21.01.2021 and the petitioners filed the present writ petition only to stop the further grant of permissions to respondent No.7 for supply of material to Railways.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the impugned orders are passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners, who are having lands adjacent to the mining area, and

¶9

¶10

without considering the objections of the other neighbouring villagers.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit written objections to the respondent authorities with all documentary evidence and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the said objections before granting any permissions in future either to respondent No.7 or any other person and pass appropriate orders on the objections filed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 15.3.2021 AMD

118

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.1170 of 2021

¶19

Date: 15.3.2021

¶20

AMD

Choppara Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Choppara Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Molla Jakir Hussain, Kurnool Dist Vs Porl Secy, Mines and Industries, Hyd and 4 Ot

Mula Maisura Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Brahmayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)

Ponnekanty chakravarthi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Srihari Rao Chaganti Vs Sri. Gopal Krishna Dwivedi

M/S Sivanandhini Minerals Vs State of Andhra Pradaesh