Dismissed

Tupakula Suresh, Chittoor Dist and Another v. Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyd and 8 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Aug 2024WP/18764/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a writ petition challenging the inaction of authorities in cancelling a quarry lease and an order to stop a stone crusher. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the respondent had stopped operations due to interim orders and made the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim order was made absolute; the writ petition was closed without costs; pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Tupakula Suresh, Chittoor Dist and Another… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH day OF AUGUST/m TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR |x tfi

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

honourable dr justice K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 187fi4 of

¶5

Between:

¶6

Tupakula Suresh, S/o Tulasaiah. aged about 32 years, Caste; S.T. R/o

¶7

Anamathu Kandriga ST Colony Rajulakandriga Panchayat

¶8

Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶9

Karani Chinna Swamy, S/o Varadaiah, aged about 59

¶10

years. Caste;

¶11

S.T., R/o Anamathu Kandriga ST Colony, Rajulakandriga Panchayat,

¶12

Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

... Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

' Sr.™™" T™‘ • '■™"' =•«-» Mines & Geology Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal Chittoor District,

¶19

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Chittoor, Chittoor District,

¶20

The Environment Engineer, Regional Office A.P. Pollution Control Board

¶21

Tirupati, Chittoor

¶22

The Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Nagalapuram, Chittoor District.

¶23

The District Girijana Welfare Officer-cumMember, Secretary, S.T. *• Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶24

M/s GVR Infra Projects Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, V.Prabhakar Bye-pass Road, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District.

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in cancelling the quarry lease granted in favour of the 9th respondent in the land in Sy.No. 365 and the stone crusher established by the respondent in Sy.No. 360 situated at Kadivedu village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District without any valid permission from the authorities concerned, inspite of the hectic objections raised by the petitioners and the villagers followed by written representations, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unilateral and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith^cancelthe quarry lease granted in favour of the 9th respondent, and to grant such other relief

¶27

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 23540 OF 2014)

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may. be pleased direct the respondent^authorities to forthwith stop the functioning of the stone crusher by the 9th respondent in the land in Sy.No.360 of Kadivedu Village,

¶29

¶30

i Nagalapuram Mandal, Writ Petition. Chittoor District, ending disposal of the main \ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K MOHAN RAMI REDDY counsel for the Respondents: GP POR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶33

RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM (SC FOR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: : V SESHA KUMARI The Court made the following: Order

APHC010133562014

S’rti.B

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl

¶39

[3310]

¶40

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶41

MONDAY .THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18764/2014 ,

¶44

Between;

¶45

Tupakula Suresh, Chittoor Dist and Others

¶46

...PETITIONER(S)

¶47

AND

¶48

...RESPONDENT(S) PrI Secy Mines Geology Dept Hyd 8 Ot and Others

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶50

1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶52

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶53

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶54

3.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶55

RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM(SC FOR AP PCB)

¶56

5.VSESHA KUMARI

¶57

The Court made the following:

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

The Writ Petition is filed tinder Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶60

seeking the following relief;

¶61

¶62

^ “.....to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in canceling the quarry lease granted in favour of the 9’^ respondent in Sy. No. 360 situated at Kqdivedu village, Nagalapuram Mandai, Chittoor District without any valid permission from the authorities concerned, inspite of^the hectic objections raised by the petitioners and the villagers followed by written representations, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unilateral and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 7.6, 19^{and21oftheConstitutionof} India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith cancel the quarry lease granted in favour of the 9‘^ respondent and to grant such other relief or reliefs ”

¶63

Heard Mr.K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for

¶64

the respondents 1 and 5.

¶65

This Court vide order dated 08.07.2014, has granted interim order which reads as under;

¶66

“It is represented that without obtaining any clearance from the A.P. Pollution Control Board and also without obtaining the prior permission, the 9'^ respondent has been carrying on the stone crushing unit. If that be so, the respondents are directed to ensure that the 9‘^ respondent wiil not operate the stone crushing unit established by it without first securing aii clearances. ”

¶67

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits^{thatinviewoftheinterim} order passed by this Court, the 9^^ respondent has not operated thp stone crushing unit, hence the writ petition may be closed.

¶68

So, in view of the above submissions, the interim order passed by this Court is hereby made absolute.

¶69

a*»s--5rr.:

¶70

¶71

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶72

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands

¶73

closed.

¶74

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶79

Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) ,High Court^OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶80

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶81

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) .High Court^OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶82

One CC to SRI. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM(SC FOR AP PCB) Advocate [OPUC]

¶83

One CC to SRI. V SESHA KUMARI Advocate [OPUC]

¶84

Three CD Copies.

¶85

NAP, NF Sec

¶86

HIGH COURT N DATED:19/08/2024

¶87

ORDER WP.No.18764of 2014

¶88

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

Tupakula Suresh, Chittoor Dist and Another v. Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyd and 8 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tupakula Suresh, Chittoor Dist and Another v. Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyd and 8 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bogilla Rama Chandra Rao, E.G. Dist Vs Asst Commr, Endowments Dept, Hyd and 2 Ot

M/s. Someswara Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V Venkatayya Vs the State of Ap

D.Dilshad Wuraf Sultanbi, Kurnool Dist Vs Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyd and 3 Others

Katta Sudheer, Khammam Dt. Vs Dy. Director, Mines and Geology Dept., Kakinada and Anr.

U. Palleswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh