Dismissed¶26

G v. Narayana Reddy v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2025WA/1055/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quarry lease grant challenge; writ appeal dismissed; AP High Court Amaravati; Divisional Mines and Geology Officer Palamaneru Chittoor; proceedings dated 11.09.2023; private respondent No.8 leaseholder; joint inspection committee order dated 19.03.2025; village 522-620 meters, school 522 meters, fields 320 meters, canal 75 meters from quarry; minimum distance norms 100 meters non-blasting / 200 meters blasting; directions for norm-compliant quarrying and timely inspections; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellants; official respondents directed to ensure quarrying operations are conducted strictly in accordance with the norms and timely inspections be conducted at the quarrying site; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed. ¶26

G v Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the grant of the quarry lease in favour of private respondent No.8 is hazardous to the residents of the villages, who have land and houses in close proximity to the area where the quarry operations are to be undertaken. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

This Court is of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge warrants no interference, particularly in the light of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee, which suggests no violation of any of the norms.

¶25

Key takeaways

The Writ Appeal is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶26
The official respondents were directed to ensure that the quarrying operations are conducted strictly in accordance with the norms and that timely inspections are conducted in regard to the quarrying site; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan), Writ Appeal No.1055 of 2025, decided 8th December 2025: appeal by G. V. Narayana Reddy and others against the learned single Judge's judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 in Writ Petition No.6644 of 2025 dismissed. The writ petition had challenged proceedings dated 11.09.2023 of the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor District, granting a quarry lease to private respondent No.8. Appellants contended the quarry was hazardous to villagers, citing an elementary school with approximately 60 children and a village population of 3,000. A joint inspection ordered on 19.03.2025 reported the village approximately 522-620 meters from the quarry area, the school at 522 meters, agricultural fields at approximately 320 meters and the water canal at 75 meters. The Division Bench held the single Judge's view warranted no interference as the Inspection Committee report suggested no violation of any of the norms, dismissed the appeal, and directed the official respondents to ensure quarrying operations strictly comply with the norms with timely inspections of the quarrying site; no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010507472025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-58 [3552] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1055 of 2025

¶4

G. V. Narayana Reddy and others

¶5

...Appellants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Advocate for appellants : Sri K. V. Raghu Veer Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Pollution Control Board.

¶11

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶12

DATE : 8th December 2025

¶13

P C :

¶14

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 rendered in Writ Petition No.6644 of 2025.

¶15

The petitioners had challenged the proceedings dated 11.09.2023 issued by the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor District whereby the quarry lease was granted in favour of private respondent No.8.

¶16

The contention of the petitioners before the learned single Judge as

¶17

also before us is that the grant of a quarry lease is hazardous to the residents

¶18

¶19

of the villages, who have land and houses in close proximity to the area where the quarry operations are to be undertaken.

¶20

It is also the case of the appellants that there is an elementary school wherein approximately 60 children are studying. The population in the village is stated to be 3,000.

¶21

When the matter was being considered by the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order dated 19.03.2025, the learned single Judge directed a joint inspection to be conducted. The report was submitted which was considered by the learned single Judge, which reflected that the distance of the village was approximately 522 to 620 meters from the quarry area and the school was at a distance of 522 meters. The agricultural fields of the petitioners were also stated to be approximately 320 meters away from the quarry area. Insofar as the water canal is concerned, the same was as per the report at a distance of 75 meters from the quarry area.

¶22

It appears that when mining operations are conducted without undertaking any blasting, a minimum distance of 100 meters has to be maintained from residential areas/public buildings and inhabited sites whereas in cases where blasting is involved, a minimum distance of 200 meters is to be maintained.

¶23

¶24

The stand of the official respondents is that due procedure had been followed for the purposes of grant of permission in favour of respondent No.8 herein.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge warrants no interference more so, in the light of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee, which suggests no violation of any of the norms.

¶26

Be that as it may, the appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, direct the official respondents to ensure that the quarrying operations are conducted strictly in accordance with

¶27

the norms and timely inspections be conducted in regard to the quarrying site. No order as to costs.

¶28

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

¶30

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶31

AMD

¶32

¶33