Allowed

B. Sridhar, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of A.P.

Telangana HC20 Apr 2018WP/7919/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three writ petitions challenging the denial of dispatch permits to a quarry lease holder. The court found the action illegal and arbitrary, holding the petitioner entitled to equal treatment as other lease holders who obtained permits via an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Allowed WPTs with costs of Rs.2,000 each; ordered 2nd respondent to issue dispatch permits within 3 weeks of undertaking submission.

B. Sridhar, Vs Prl.Secy., Mines… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7915, 7919 and 7988 OF 2018

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner in W.P.No.7915 and 7919 of 2018 is the proprietor of the proprietary concern, which is the petitioner in W.P.No.7988 of 2018.

¶4

He has been granted quarry lease for road metal and building stone under ten separate mining leases for ten different extents of lands in Urudabilli Village of Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶5

In one particular mine covered by proceedings No.743/Q/2011, which relates to 1.00 Hector in survey No.187/2 of said village, an accident occurred and a worker died. The Directorate General of Mining Safety, Hyderabad stepped in and issued prohibitory order prohibiting engaging of workers in the quarry in which accident took place except for forming benches on the sides of said leased area through proceedings dt.18.12.2017.

¶6

Thereafter, the petitioner complied with the requirement in the said order and on 15.03.2016 the Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad, himself withdrew the prohibitory order and permitted working of the mine with a condition that work shall be done from top to downwards and also a fencing is to be made at the bottom of the high wall. He specifically stated that even in the said mine where the accident had occurred, he had no objection to issue dispatch permits for the stone produced from the top benches.

¶7

¶8

Yet, the petitioner contends that respondents are not issuing dispatch permits for dispatching mineral from the other quarry lease areas covered by other leases though the leases are subsisting and the respondents are acting in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶9

Counter affidavits have been filed in these writ petitions by the respondents admitting that even in the mine where accident occurred, the prohibitory order had been lifted on 15.03.2016. But it is contended that the Director of Mine Safety, Hyderabad had inspected the quarry leases held nearer to the accident prone leased area and instructed not to allow quarrying operations till all the lease holders take precautionary measures under the provisions of Minor Mineral Regulations, 1961.

¶10

But, the Government Pleader for Industries is unable to produce the said instructions. He however admitted that the office of the 2^nd respondent has issued dispatch permits to all other quarry leases in Vizianagaram District by merely obtaining an affidavit/undertaking incorporating certain conditions specified in para 5(viii) of the counter affidavit.

¶11

Why the 2^nd respondent is discriminating against the petitioner by denying dispatch permits, while other lease holders are being allowed to transport the mineral by issuance of dispatch permits by filing a mere undertaking, is not at all explained in the counter affidavit.

¶12

The Government Pleader for Industries contends that since an accident occurred in one of the mines for which quarry lease

¶13

¶14

had been granted to the petitioner, to ensure that the petitioner carries his quarry operations more carefully, dispatch permits are denied to the petitioner.

¶15

In my considered opinion, this is not a valid reason at all, since every person holding a quarry lease including the petitioner have to take adequate precautionary measures; and petitioner also assures that what ever affidavit or undertaking is required, he is willing to file it and on furnishing the same, petitioner should also be permitted to transport the mineral by using dispatch permits issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶16

Therefore, the action of the 2^nd respondent in denying dispatch permits on the pretext of a nonexistent instruction of the Directorate General of Mining Safety, Hyderabad is clearly illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14, 300A of the Constitution of India; and it is clear that the 2^nd respondent has clearly discriminated against the petitioner in the matter of issuance of dispatch permits and has not treated the petitioner on par with other holders of quarry lease in Vizianagaram District.

¶17

Accordingly, these three Writ Petitions are allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- in each of the Writ Petition, which shall be paid by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner in the Writ Petitions, which shall be recovered from the 2^nd respondent; petitioner shall give an affidavit/undertaking, as mentioned in para 5(viii) of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petitions, before the 2^nd respondent, and within three (03) weeks of receipt of such affidavit/undertaking, the 2^nd respondent shall issue dispatch permits to the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶20

stand dismissed.

¶21

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶22

20^th April, 2018. gra

B. Sridhar, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sridhar, v. Prl.Secy., Mines dept., State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.S. Sukumar and Ano. Vs Secy., Endowments Dept. and 4 Ors.

Telugu Venkateswarlu, Vs State of A.P.

P. Anasuya Vs State of Ts

K Yashodara Vs P P S Reddy

M/s. Satya Stone Crusher Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Papi Reddy Gari Narayana Swamy Vs Budala Nrayana/Narayanappa (Died)