Disposed

Revuri Sarojini Devi , Sarojana, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Mar 2017WP/9661/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged inaction by officials in cancelling a quarry lease due to alleged environmental hazards. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representations and take necessary action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2, 3, and 5 directed to consider representations and take action within four weeks if violations found.

Revuri Sarojini Devi , Sarojana, Vs The State of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9661 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents 2 & 5 in not taking any steps for cancellation of quarry lease for building stone & Road metal of the 6^th respondent in spite of the representations, dated 27.01.2017 and 08.02.2017, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 5 to take appropriate steps for cancellation of quarry lease for building stone & road metal of the 6^th respondent over the land admeasuring 2.00 Hectors in Sy.No.35/ A1, Kothagattu village, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal District.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that the 6^th respondent is her neighbouring land owner and that the 5^th respondent granted quarry lease for Building Stone & Road Metal to the 6^th respondent and without obtaining permission from the Pollution Control Board for operating the above quarry the 6^th respondent is carrying on the quarry operations which are endanger to the surrounding public and private properties.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representations to the respondents 3 and 5 on 08.02.2017 and 27.01.2017 for taking necessary steps to terminate the quarry lease of the 6^th respondent, but no action has been taken so far and due to the mining activities carrying on by the 6^th respondent the petitioner is suffering a lot and therefore, the respondents 3 and 5 may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶7

Since the main grievance of the petitioner is to consider and dispose of his representations, the writ petition can be disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, directing the respondents

¶8

¶9

3 and 5 to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 08.02.2017 and 27.01.2017 and if there are any violations committed by the 6^th respondent, take action in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.Ps., if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶12

March 23, 2017

¶13

KTL

Revuri Sarojini Devi , Sarojana, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revuri Sarojini Devi , Sarojana, v. The State of Telangana

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

Sree Veera Saiva Sangha, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.M.Aswini, Vs State of Telangana

M/s Sri Hema Durga Constructions, Vs The State of Telangana

M. Srikanth Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Kappa Parvathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Ramu Vs The State of Telangana