Quashed

Earam Agaiah v. The Government of A.P

Telangana HC2 Feb 2010WP/13148/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an auction notification for sand quarry leases issued by the Mines and Geology Department. The writ petition was allowed because the notification failed to obtain mandatory prior clearance from the Director of Ground Water Department regarding groundwater impact, as required by the A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned auction notification dated 10-06-2008 is quashed.

Earam Agaiah Vs The Government of A.P — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶4

W.P.NO.13148 of 2008

¶5

02-02-2010

¶6

BETWEEN;

¶7

Erram Agaiah and three others

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Government of A.P. Mines and Geology Department and others

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶15

W.P.NO.13148 of 2008

¶16

ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J)

¶17

The petitioners who are residents of Anupuram Village, Vemulavad Mandal, Karimnagar District have filed this writ petition in public interes challenging the auction notification dated 10-06-2008 issued by the 3^r respondent for conduct of public auctions through sealed tenders for gran of quarry leases of sand, a minor mineral, in the reaches specified in th notification, scheduled to be held on 25-06-2008, as violative of the A.P Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1966 ( for short “the 1966 Rules”).

¶18

The challenge is, inter alia, on the ground that a report from th Director, Ground Water Department on the ground water impact by th quarrying operations had not been obtained, as mandated under Rule 9

¶19

B(6) of the 1966 Rules.

¶20

In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that th area in question would come under the submergence of Mid Mana Reservoir; that the auction was proposed to cater to the needs of sand fo the construction of “ Mid Manair Canal”; that the Ground Water Departmen had earlier declined grant of clearance for 22 areas of Manair river; an that no clearance was obtained from the Ground Water Department a none was required as in a similar case in a Moosi project of Nalgond District, no such prior clearance of the Water Department was obtained.

¶21

In view of the provisions of Rule 9-B(6) of the 1966 Rules and th judgment of this Court dated 10-08-2009 in W.P.No.9753 of 2009, the lega position is clear that no quarrying of sand is permissible without a prio clearance obtained from the Director of Ground Water Department on th aspect whether the quarrying would adversely impact the ground wate levels in the area in question.

¶22

In the circumstances, the impugned auction notification cannot b sustained and is accordingly quashed.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶24

______________

¶25

GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶26

__________________

¶27

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶28

2^ND FEBRUARY 2010.

¶29

TSNR

Earam Agaiah v. The Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Earam Agaiah v. The Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors H.No.10-1-471 Vs The Addl.Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Fac,O/o.Commissioner

M/s. Sri Sai Communications Net Work Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kusuma Sathaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Matangi Venu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Bmm Ispat Ltd., (Formerly Hkt Mining Pvt. Ltd) Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Customs, Kakinada