P. Somla Naik, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secrtary(Mines and Geology), Hyd and 5 Othrs

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022PIL/76/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL arose from allegations of illegal granite quarrying on government land. Respondents filed an affidavit detailing inspections, seizure of stones, imposition of penalties, and deployment of police vigilance. Finding that complaints had not raised since 2014 and measures were in place, the court closed the PIL without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is closed with no order as to costs.

P. Somla Naik, Mbnr Dist. Vs Prl. Secrtary(Mines… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO: 76 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Somla Naik, S/o Savya Naik, Aged 36 years, Occ: Ex-Sarpanch, Rio H.No.4-92, Peddarevalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Mines & Geology) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶13

The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District

¶14

The Tahasildar, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶15

B.Raghuma Reddy, S/o Not known, Aged ... years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Peddarevalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶16

Janardhan Goud, S/o Not known Aged .... years, Occ: Contractor, R/o Kashireddy Gudem village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar li.jlib=*r"

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not preventing the illegal quarrying operations undertaken by the respondents No.5 & 6 and also in not maintaining the vig.ilance over the illegal quarrying of the granites from the land in Sy.No.344 admeasuring Ac.37.20 guntas and Sy.No.34B admeasuring Ac. 125-35^guntas situated^at Peddarevalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^{District as illegal,} arbitrary and^gross violation^{of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitutionof lndiaand} consequently direct the respondents^{No.1to 4 to take appropriate action forthwith} to prevent the illegal^{quarrying operations over the abovesaid land by maintaining} vigilance over the said land.

¶18

il2t

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(P|LMP. NO: 94OF 20141

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to stop the illegal^quarrying operations undertaken by the respondents No.5 & 6 over the land in Sy.No.344 admeasuring Ac.37.20 guntas and Sy.No.34B admeasuring Ac. 125-35 guntas situated at Peddarevalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, pending the disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. LAKSHMA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI T.V. RAMANA REDDY, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.76 of 2O14

¶29

ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice tljjal Bhugan)

¶30

Heard Mr. P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. T.V.Ramana Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geologr for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶31

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶32

"It is therefore, prayed that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandarnus or other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 in not preventing the iilegal quarrying operations undertaken by the respondents No.S & 6 and also in not maintaining the vigilance over the illegal quarrying of the granites from the land in Sy.No.344 admeasuring Ac.37.2O guntas and Sy.No.348 admeasuring Ac.125-35 guntas situated at Peddarevalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and gross violation of Articles 14 and 2l ofthe Constitution of

¶33

\ t

¶34

HCJ & SN,] P-1.L.No.76 of 2014

¶35

¶36

India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to take appropriate action forthwith to prevent the illegal quarrying operations over the above said land by maintaining vigilance over the said land ald pass such other order or orders as ttris court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶37

In the circumstances, it is also prayed that this court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.l to 4 to stop the illegal quarrying operations undertaken by the respondents No.S and 6 over the land in Sy.No.344 admeasuring Ac.37.2O guntas and Sy.No.348 admeasuring Ac.125.35 guntas situated at Peddareva-l1i village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, pending the disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

¶38

From the above, it is discernible that relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to respondent Nos. I to 4 to prevent illegal quarrying activities allegedly being carried out by respondent Nos.S & 6 over the subject land.

¶39

4 In this case, notice was issued wa]/ back on o1.o4.20t4

¶40

¶41

Respondent Nos. I & 2 i.e., Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Mines & Geologl Department,

¶42

HCJ& S-1VJ P.I.L.No.76 of 2014

¶43

¶44

Hyderabad and Assistant Director of Mines and GeoloS/, Mahaboobnagar District have filed a common counter affidavit. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit are relevant and those are extract:d as under:

¶45

"lt is submitted that the Assistant Director of Mines & Geolory, (Vigilance), Jadcherla along with Tahsildar, Balanagar have conducted Joint Inspection of the subject area on 20.12.201,3 and reported that there is no illegal Quarrying^{going on at the timeof inspection.Further} reported that a quantity of I35 M3 of building Stone was seized by the Revenue oflicials after conducting panchanama. The Ta-hsildar also requested to dispose the slonc metal stock of 135 M3 seized at Peddarevally Village as per Mining rules which was seized by Mining (Vigilance) and Revenue offi cia-ls.

¶46

It is further submitted that the Tahsildar, Balanagar vide Letter No.B12443l2O 13 Dt: 06.01.2014 addressed to the Asst. Director of Mines & Geolory, (Vigilance), Jadcherla informed that Rs.5,000.00 imposed penalty by way of challan to Two tractors each whose transporting the Granite and instructed the Villagers that no work to be done without prior permission of the competent authorities and the same were stopped then only. Therefore, the a.llegations of the^petitioner that the official respondents are not taking any action in preventing the illegal quarrying operations in t}le area is incorrect and hence the same is hereby denied."

¶47

¶48

H(l,r &, SN./ P.l.L.No 76 c\l ]0 !.1

¶49

6 From the above, it is evident that Assista,nt Director along with the local Tahsildar had conducted^joint inspection of the subject land on^,0.1,2.2013, but found no illega1 quarr5,ing at the time of inspection. However certain qr.rantities of stone were seized by the revenlle officials. It was also loun ci that two tractors ii.'cre trar-rsporting extrircted granite from the subject land. Accordingly, penalties were imposed. Tahsildar has informed uicie ietter dated 24.O2.2O 1 4 ihat no extraction and transportation of stone^.,i,as taking place since then.

¶50

We further find from the affidavit that the answering respondents have instructed the concerned police authorities to ensure that there is no encroachment over Government land and also to take necessary action against the persons who were earlier involved in illegal quarrying in the subject land. On that basis, answering respol;lcients have stated that^*ftey have taken all the required measures to stop illegal extraction of stone and have also instructed the concerned officials to keep a strict vigil over the subject land-"

¶51

5 HCJ & SNJ P.l.L.No.76 of 20 14

¶52

¶53

which is a Government land. Since the year 2014 answering respondents have not received any complaint regarding illegal quarrylng.

¶54

B. [n view of the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the public interest litigation.

¶55

Accordingly and in the light of the above, the Public Interest Litigation is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this

¶57

Pubiic Interest Litigation shall stand closed.

¶58

t t

¶59

SD/.SHYLESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/t iM\W-1' SECTION OFFICER

¶60

¶61

'1. On" CC to SRI P LAKSHMA REDDY Advocate TOPUCI

¶62

Two CCs to GP for Mines & Geology, High Court^{for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶63

Two'CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court^{for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT! 4. Ohe CC to sRl. OUO| N ROUUSUDHAN^{REDDY Advocate} [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

¶64

One Spare Copy

CHRsB ..v_

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712022

ORDER

HE STA I.-r
( +
,<br>a'
c
r.)
2 6 sEP z[il
aat . . - -"i_1

¶70

P.l.L.No.76 of 2014

¶71

CLOSING THE PIL WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

@x1("

P. Somla Naik, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secrtary(Mines and Geology), Hyd and 5 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Somla Naik, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secrtary(Mines and Geology), Hyd and 5 Othrs

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

In Re Chopping of the Palms of two migrants Vs The State of Telangana

P.Bhavani, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pres, M/S.Nagole Auto Drivers Welf Assn., Ranga Reddy Dist Vs Prl Secy, Transport, R and B Dept, Hyderabad and 6 Others

Vattsala Vidya Sagar, Hyderabad. Vs the State of Tg.,Genl.Admn.,Hyd.,and Anr.

Prop P.L. Vishweshwar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

J Ram Mohan Chowdhary S/o Jj Chowdary Vs Union of India

O. Yella Reddy, Vs The PrI. Secretary ( Municipalities) Government of A.P.

K.Kondal Rao Vs State of Tg., Rep Byits Prl.Chief Conservator and 3 Othes

Sri M. Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private LtdPVT. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)

M/s. Viswakirthi Conveyors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

K. Krishna Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

M/s. Indu projects Limited Vs The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat)

M/s. Victor Logistics Pvt, Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner (St)