Despite allegations of contempt for violating an interim mining ban, the court closed the proceedings as the underlying writ petition was disposed of, discharging the respondents.
Petitioners discharged from contempt proceedings; liberty granted to seek suitable reliefs regarding transport permits.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.750 of 2014
Dated: 13.06.2014
Between: A. Vengaiah and another .. Petitioners and K. Pradeep Chandra and another
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M.P. Chandramouli
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Industries & Commerce
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful violation of memo
No.2848/M.I(1)2013-1 dated 10.02.2014 and order dated 24.02.2014 in C.C.No.2064 of 2013.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit.
At the hearing, it has come out that the above-noted memo was issued in order to comply with the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22812 of 2013 and even the contempt case also arose out of the said interim order. However, subsequently, the main writ petition itself came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 07.02.2014, wherein this Court has held that unless the required environmental permissions are obtained by the petitioners, they are not entitled to carry on mining operations. In view of the passing of the final order in the writ petition, the petitioners cannot carry on the mining operations without the environmental clearance.
Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioners, while candidly admitting the above-mentioned position, has, however, stated that his clients are entitled to issue of transport permits in respect of the mineral already extracted before the writ petition is disposed of.
In my opinion, this aspect does not arise in the contempt case and the petitioners are entitled to seek suitable relief in this regard by instituting appropriate proceedings.
Subject to this liberty given to the petitioners as above, the contempt case is closed and the respondents are discharged from the contempt proceedings.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th June, 2014 IBL
A. Vengaiah and another
K. Pradeep Chandra and another
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
