Disposed

P.Baby Prashanti, v. Govternment of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Feb 2007WP/13813/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging unlicensed quarrying operations in East Godavari District. Relying on the counter affidavit by the Government that precautions were being taken, the Court deemed no further inquiry necessary and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to make a fresh representation if inconvenience is caused in future.

P.Baby Prashanti, Vs Govternment of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 13813 of 1998

¶3

DATE: 14-02-2007

¶4

Between : P.Baby Prashati … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Industries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others.

¶5

… Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13813 of 1998

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 1 to 4 in allowing the respondents 5 to 7 to carry on quarrying operations in Sy.No.67/6 to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Ward No.24, Rajahmudry, East Godavari District is arbitrary and illegal.

¶10

It is alleged that the respondents 4 to 6 were allowed to carry on the quarry operations without any licence for the use of explosive substances for excavating black road metal. It is also alleged that necessary permission under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder have not been obtained by the respondents 5 to 7.

¶11

This Court while directing Rule Nisi, granted interim stay of quarrying operations. However, despite service of notice, respondents 5 to 7 did not choose to appear and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the Department has been taking all the necessary precautions to safeguard the interest of the residential locality. It is also stated that the respondents 5 to 7 are not lessees and quarrying is being operated in benami names. In view of what has been stated in the counter affidavit, no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition.

¶12

Accordingly, recording the statement of the respondents 1 to 4 in their counter affidavit that they are taking all the necessary precautions to safeguard the interest of the residents of the locality, the writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner is also granted liberty to make a fresh representation, in case any inconvenience is caused in future, in which

¶13

event the same shall be considered by the respondents 1 to 4 in accordance with law. No costs.

¶14

_______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14-02-2007 KLP

P.Baby Prashanti, v. Govternment of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Baby Prashanti, v. Govternment 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

Durga Prasad Vs The District Collector, Rangareddy district

Kavalkar Isthari Vs State of A.P.

M Krishna Murthy, Vs The Mandal Revenu Officer

Somasila Project Mumpu Badithula Seva Sangham, Vs Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

Karri Venkateswara Rao Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

M.Eswaraiah, Vs Qutbullapur Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner