This judgment orders the quashing of a sand quarry auction notification for violating groundwater and river conservancy rules. A subsequent order clarifies the cost award allocation in the previous decision.
The impugned auction notification is quashed. The previous order is modified to clarify cost allocation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Note: ‘On being mentioned’ Order dated 26-02-2010 is under the Main Order.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.Nos.10320 & 10918 of 2009
10-02-2010
BETWEEN;
Sidamsetti Abbai son of Bapaiah
...Petitioner
vs.
The Government of A.P. Department of Industries and Commerce, rep. by its Secretary and others
...Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.Nos.10320 & 10918 of 2009
ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J)
These writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law
and are thus considered and disposed of by this common order.
The facts in W.P.No.10320 of 2009 are illustrative of the relevant facts pertaining to both the writ petitions and are referred to herein. Facts in W.P.No.10320 of 2009:
The petitioner a resident of Kothapet Village and Mandal, East Godavari District impeaches the conduct of the State in proposing to conduct a public auction on 26-05-2009 for grant of leasehold rights for
quarry of sand in Reach No.26, Package No.7 of Gouthami Left Flood Bank at Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli of East Godavari District pursuant to an auction notification dated 08-05-2009 issued by the 3rd respondent, on the ground that the auction process has been initiated without obtaining a ground water feasibility report from the Director, Ground Water Department or a permission from the 4th respondent under the River Conservancy Act, in transgression of the provisions of the Rule 9-B(6) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 (for short “the 1966 Rules) and the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder.
The impugned notification dated 08-05-2009 published on behalf of the 3rd respondent at Serial No.12 enumerates Reach No.26 pertaining to Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli sand reaches constituting package No.7. The petitioner asserting to be a small farmer in pursuit of cultivation of dry land in Mandaplli village, asserts to be dependant on the water from the adjacent Godavari river occasionally and to be substantially dependant on bore wells and ground water for agriculture and drinking water. Acute water shortage in the village is pleaded. In para.4 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that the petitioner’s enquiries reveal that the 3rd respondent had not obtained permission as required under Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules nor has permission been obtained from the 4th respondent under the River Conservancy Act.
The writ petition initially came up for admission on 25.05.2009 and on 02-06-2009 the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology waived notices for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development waived notice for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The matter was adjourned to 23-06-2009 for filing a counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavits have however been filed.
In view of the learned Government Pleaders for Mines and Geology and Irrigation & Command Area Development waiving notices for the concerned respondents on 02-06-2009 and the time for filing a counter-affidavit, under the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 having expired, it would be legitimate to conclude that on the basis of the nontraverse, the allegations in the writ petition reflect the factual situation. In W.P.No.9753 of 2009, by the judgment dated 10.08.2009, this Court had spelt out the principle that in the absence of a ground water report by the Director of the Ground Water Department, no notification could be issued for conduct of auctions for grant of leases for quarrying of sand, in view of the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules. As the notification transgresses the principle spelt out in the judgment in W.P.No.9753 of 2009 and the notification violates the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) as well, the notification impugned is quashed to the extent package No.7 relating to Mandapalli-Vadapalem-Vanapalli sand reaches is notified for auction. The notification shall pro tanto stand quashed.
As the respondents have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit, we consider it appropriate to allow these writ petitions with costs of Rs.2,500/- of which Rs.1500/- shall be paid by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and Rs.1000/- to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J
__________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
10th FEBRUARY 2010.
Note: A copy of this order be marked to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Service Authority for information. (B/O)
TSNR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P. 10320 and 10918 of 2009
Dated. 26–02-2010
ON BEING MENTIONED:
ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR, J)
We have directed posting of these writ petitions ‘for being mentioned’ as in the last paragraph of the ‘oral common order dated 10th February, 2010 in the writ petitions’, there is an ambiguity as to whether the costs imposed should be paid in each writ petition by the 3rd respondent or for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions.
Having considered the matter and having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we correct the last paragraph of the ‘oral common order dated 10th February, 2010 as under and the said paragraph shall be substituted as under:
‘As the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit, we consider it appropriate to allow these writ petitions with costs of Rs.2,500-00 of which Rs.1500-00 shall be paid to all the writ petitioners by the 3rd respondent who shall also pay Rs.1,000-00 to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.’
The oral common order dated 10-02-2010 in the above writ petitions is modified as above.
pvks
26-02-
2010
Nb:- Registry to issue the modified order.
b/o pvks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the auction notification for sand quarrying can be quashed for lack of ground water feasibility report and river conservancy permission.
Whether a separate oral order is needed to clarify the payment of costs imposed in the previous oral order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.9753 of 2009Referred¶25
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sidamsetti Abbai
The Government of A.P.
Goda Raghuram
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
