Dismissed

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Feb 2013WP/1710/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the respondents' decision to restrict the petitioner's sand mining activity to 54,000 cubic meters, which was a condition imposed by the Department of Environment upon resuming mining operations following Supreme Court orders. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies with the Department of Environment if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the restriction of mining activity to 54,000 cubic meters as per Department of Environment clearance. The matter was left open for the petitioner to pursue r

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1710 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was granted mining lease to quarry sand in Gutala Reach of Polavaram Mandal, on Godavari river vide proceedings, dated 14-06-2011 issued by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,

¶4

Eluru-the 2^nd respondent herein. It is in force up to 31-03-2013. The first part of the lease ended with 31-03-2012 and the second part is commenced from 01-04-2012. However, on account of the orders of this Court in the year 2012, the mining activity in the entire State has come to a standstill. It is only after the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed orders by imposing certain conditions that the activity was resumed.

¶5

The petitioner contends that it has paid the requisite amounts and the respondents are proposing to restrict its activity only to the extent of 54,000 cubic meters, though such a condition was not incorporated in the lease.

¶6

The respondents filed a counter affidavit. According to them, the resumption of the mining activity was on the basis of orders of the Supreme Court and a specific condition was indicated to the effect that, it shall only on being certified by the Department of Environment. It is submitted that after examining the reach that was leased to the petitioner, the Department of Environment has given clearance by restricting the quantity to 54,000 cubic meters.

¶7

Heard Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and learned Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj.

¶8

It is no doubt true that in the proceedings that were issued in favour of the petitioner on 14-06-2011 are the consequential lease deed, but no quantity of sand was mentioned. The entitlement of the petitioner was with reference to geo coordinates mentioned in the notification as well as the proceedings. As long as the mining was to be within the geo coordinates, quantity hardly matters.

¶9

Had the working of the lease been without any interruption or supervening circumstances, the petitioner would have been entitled to quarry any quantity of sand within the time limits and the geo coordinates. However, the sand mining activity comes to an end by 31.3.2013 as per orders in W.P.No.1882 of 2011 passed by this Court. The matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) 15305 of 2013. The Supreme Court permitted the resumption of sand mining activity by imposing a condition that the clearance by the Department of Environment must be obtained.

¶10

In respect of the reach that was leased to the petitioner, the clearance was given by the Department of Environment through proceedings dated 22-08-2012 specifically stipulating the quantity as 54,000 cubic meters. Once that condition is incorporated, the respondents are entitled to restrict the mining to that quantity. The grievance of the petitioner, if at all can be only of stipulation by the Department of Environment. Hence no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in proposing to restrict the mining activity of the petitioner to the quantity of 54,000 cubic meters.

¶11

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the action of the respondents, and leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue

¶12

remedies, if any, with the Department of Environment.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:28-02-2013 nvl/gj

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Godavari Fishermen Cooperative Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Madhu Transport, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Sri.Ch.Raja Reddy Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government

Sri Padmavathi Venkateshwara Medical Science Vs The Government of A.P rep.by its

N. Maheswar, Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board

Nanabala Amaranath, Vs Moore Venkata Reddy

Svec Construction Ltd. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh