M. Siva Sankara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. V. S. V. Reddy, S/o. G.V.N. Reddy, Aged about^{58years,R/o.Flat} No. 9, 4'^ Floor, T.G.R. Heights, Mount view Enclave Road No. 12, A.C.B. Office Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

M/s KarnevI Silica Pvt Ltd, Rep., by its director, Jeevarathnva kumar, Cheekarameli, O/o. H.No. 8-2-686/7/1/2, Road No. 12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

r

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

■^Retition 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direc^tioatieclaring the action of the 3'"'^ respondent in issuing the impugned procee^ngs vide Proceedings No. 342/TQL/QTZ/2023, Dt.^{21.12.2023for} transfer of the quarry leasee in favour of the 6th respondent in respect of the land being an extent of 6.00 Hectares in Sy.No. 988/P situated at Velichelamala Village, N.P. Kunta Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District is as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of^{theconstitutionof} India and violation of principal of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and consequently set-aside the above said proceedings.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings issued by the 3^^^ respondent vide proceedings No. 342/TQL/QTZ/2023, Dt. 21.12.2023, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents no. 2 to 4 herein to grant online permissions to the petitioner for carrying quarry operations of land being an extent of 6.00 Hectares in Sy.No. 988/P situated at Velichelamala Village, N.P. Kunta Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

M/s KarnevI Silica Pvt Ltd, Rep., by its director Jeevarathnva kumar. Cheekarameli, O/o. H.No. 8-2-686/7/1/2, Road No. 12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad.

¶27

...Petitioner/Respondent No.6

¶28

M. Siva Sankara Reddy, S/o. M. Narayanaswamy Reddy, R/o. D.No. 3- 86 Somaraju Kunta, Daniyanicheruvu (V), N.P. Kunta Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi.

¶30

The Commissioner of Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.

¶31

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttparthi, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶32

The Deputy Direction of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶33

G. V. S. V. Reddy, S/o. G.V.N. Reddy, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Flat No. 9, 4*'^ Floor, T.G.R. Heights, Mount view Enclave Road No. 12, A.C.B. Office Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the orders dated 5.5.2025 passed in lA No. 1^{of2025inWPNo.7716} of 2025 and consequently dismiss the WP No. 7716 of^2024.

a

I

lA NO: 4 OF 2025

Between:

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Puttparthi, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶41

...Petitioner/3''' Respondent

¶42

AND

¶43

M. Siva Sankara Reddy, S/o. M. Narayanaswamy Reddy,^R/o.D.No.3- 86 Somaraju Kunta, Daniyanicheruvu (V) N.P. Kunta Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶44

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi.

¶45

The Commissioner of Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam Vijayawada.

¶46

The Deputy Direction of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶47

G. V. S. V. Reddy, S/o. G.V.N. Reddy, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Flat No. 9, 4"^ Floor, T.G.R. Heights, Mount view Enclave Road No. 12, A.C.B. Office Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶48

M/s KarnevI Silica Pvt Ltd, Rep., by its director, Jeevarathnva kumar Cheekarameli, O/o. H.No. 8-2-686/7/1/2, Road No. 12 Banjara Hills

¶49

Hyderabad.

¶50

...Respondents/Respondents

¶51

r

¶52

(R2 to R6 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶53

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 05-05-2025 passed in WP.No.7716/2025 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner: P NARASIMHULU

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ; GP FOR MINES^ANDGEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI V. SEETHARAMA^AVADHANI

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Ms. DIVYA QOKKA

¶57

The Court made the following order:

¶58

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

¶59

[3458]

¶60

APHC010139042025

¶61

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶62

PRESENT

¶63

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶64

WRIT PETITION NO: 7716/2025

¶65

Between:

¶66

1.M. SIVA SANKARA REDDY, S/0. M. NARAYANASWAMY REDDY,^R/0. D.NO. 3-86 SOMARAJU KUNTA, DANIYANICHERUVU (V), N.R KUNTAMANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT

¶67

...PETITIONER

¶68

AND

¶69

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDIAMARAVATHI.

¶70

2.THE COMMISSIONER OF DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA.

¶71

3.THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, PUTTPARTHI,^SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶72

4.THE DEPUTY DIRECTION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ANANTHAPUR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT.

¶73

5.G V S V REDDY, S/0. G.V.N. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,^R/0. FLAT NO. 9, 4TH FLOOR, T.G.R. HEIGHTS, MOUNT VIEW ENCLAVE ROAD NO. 12, A.C.B. OFFICE LANE, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD.

¶74

M/S KARNEVI SILICA PVT LTD, REP, BY ITS DIRECTOR, JEEVARATHNVA KUMAR, CHEEKARAMELI, 0/0 H.NO. 8-2-686/7/1/2, ROAD NO. 12 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD.

¶75

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶76

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action^{ofthe3rdrespondent} in

¶77

y

¶78

of ''ide Proceedings No. 342/TQL/QTZ/2023 ° rrcrrrSI nr,' “ '"• * situated at Velichelamala Villaae N PkL^I M.:o^ IS as illegal, arbitrary, violin of Art"le 14 l^aoo A off ' of India and violation of principal of natural i’u<!tirrf 1°°'^, ' constitution

¶79

IA NOMOF 2025

¶80

»/2rr.s Dt. 21.12.2023 pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 7091^

¶81

kUm a , C f®® Velichelamala Village N anP. 1 pass^ ' writ petition

¶82

lA NO: 3 OF 207.^

¶83

in the'^affll’n!; ^^"'''"9 '^e circumstances stated in the aft davit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased No. 7716 of 2025 and consequently dismiss the WP No. 7716 of 2024 and p<;apS

¶84

lA NO: 4 OF 202^

¶85

in thl®ffi!l’'' i'n!; circumstances stated n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased \A/D^M^ pipased to vacate the interim order dated; 05-05-2025 passed in WPNo,7716/2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass^s

¶86

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶87

1.P NARASIMHULU

¶88

Counsel for the Responclent(S):

¶89

3

¶90

f

¶91

1 .V SEETHARAMA AVADHANI

¶92

2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶93

3.DIVYADOKKA

¶94

The Court made the following:

¶95

ORDER:-

¶96

Heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the to 4*^ respondents, Sri V.Seetharama Avadhani, learned^counsel for the 5*" respondent and Ms. Divya Dokka, learned counsel^{forthe6^^respondent.}

¶97

The challenge in the writ petition is to the proceedings of the 3^*^ respondent, transferring the lease in favour of^{the6''^respondent.}

¶98

It is contended that the quarry lease was granted^{infavourofthe} petitioner for a period of 20 years in 2017. The same^{wouldexpireby} 17.12.2037. In this regard, the petitioner has obtained the required clearances from the Pollution Control Board. The respondents have granted permission for quarrying. However, vide the impugned proceedings, the same has been transferred in favour of the 6**^ respondent. It is contended that the said proceedings^{havebeenissued} purporting to be acting on the application made on^{behalfofthepetitioner} by the alleged General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) of^{thepetitioner,one} Mr. G.V.S.V.Reddy. It is contended that the petitioner^{hadneverexecuted} any G.P.A. in favour of anyone. However, the respondents, without verifying the same, have passed the impugned proceedings. Immediately,

¶99

4

¶100

on coming to know of the same, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 12.12.2024 seeking cancellation of the said proceedings. However, the respondents have not considered the same and the 5‘^ and 6*" respondents have been threatening the petitioner to vacate the subject premises. Thus, approached this Court.

¶101

The respondents filed counter affidavit. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1"' to 4* respondents would submit that, challenging the revision proceedings, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before the 1®‘ respondent. The impugned proceedings have been passed based on the Q.P.A. executed by the petitioner in favour of the 5*^ respondent. On the strength of the said G.P.A., the respondent filed an application seeking transfer of the lease i rn favour of the 6‘^ respondent. Therefore, the respondents have acted on the same, and there is no illegality committed by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner.

¶102

Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court do not deem it appropriate to go into the issue of validity or otherwise of the alleged G.P.A. executed in favour of the 5*^ respondent by the petitioner, since the same involves appreciation of evidence and consequential recording of a finding of fact, which this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would normally refrain from doing so.

¶103

5

¶104

f

¶105

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1®' respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the proceedings No.342/TQL/Qtz/2023, dated 21.12.2023, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶106

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

¶107

closed.

¶108

//TRUE COPY//

¶109

Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶110

To,

¶111

SECTION OFFICER