While allowing the writ appeal, this Court disposed of the matter by imposing a time limit for the survey, noting the temporary halt on mining operations.
Liberty granted to conduct survey within eight weeks; mining operations and lifting materials prohibited during this period.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
IVONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 301 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against order Dated 0210312022 Passed in WP.No.57BO of 2021 on the fite of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1
It//s Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer (P) Ltd,
Rep by its Director N .Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. N. Raghupathi Reddy, aged ?!9u.t^49ygq1s,Occ:Business, R/o. Hyderabad, having its Office at H. No: B-2- 269 I S IBB B and 81, New No. 386, Sagar Society, Road No 2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 500 034.
...RESPONDENT (PETtTtONER)
/ ,/
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to iuspend the orderdated2Lg2o22 in W.P.No.57BOl2021, pendingdisposal of the Writ Appeal
Counsel for theAppellant(s) : GP FOR FORESTS
Counsel for theRespondentNo.1 : SRl. PANNALASRINIVAS
Counsel for the RespondentNos.2 to 5 : GP FOR MINESAND GEOLOGY
Counsel for the RespondentNos.6 to 9 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for theRespondentNos.10 to 13 : SRl.ZAKIRALI DANISH, Sc FoR TS NPDCL
The Court Deliveredthe following : JUDGMENT
/
THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINANDKUMARSIIAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.301of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bte the Chiel Juslice Satish ChandtaShanna)
The present writ appeal isarising out of an order dated 02.03.2022passedby the learned Single Judge in W.P-No.5786 of 2021.
The undisputed facts ofthe case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by the respondentNo.1 herein (writ petitioner) against the showcause notice dated 06'01'2021 issued by the Forest DivisionalOfficer, Kamareddy, in respect of a quarry lease,which the writ petitioner was holding. The show causenotice was issued stating that the mining area falls in theEco-Sensitive Zone and mining is in violation of the statutoryprovisionsas contained under the Wildlife Act,1972, Bio-diversityAct, 2002,the Telangana Water, Landand Trees Act, 2002, and the Telangarra ForestAct, 1967. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.However, at the same time,the learned Single Judgehas passed the following order:-
l
"Therefore, the clil.ection issued by the authorities to the petitioner Company to stop the mining operations till the demarcation is done that too wit}rout fixing any time limit or taking any steps to complete the same, is il1ega1, bad and arbitrary exercise of power vested on them. In case the officials of the Forest Department are of the opinion that the land a_llocated to the petitionel. is in violation of any of the Forest or Environmental laws, firstly they have to take steps to conduct a survel,duly putting the petitioner as rvell as aj1y other interested person on notice and then based on the sun,ey report if they come to the conclusion that the land allocated to the petitioner is falling in the prohibited area, then issue a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explarration, consider the objections and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass order on merits. But, till such time the surv.ey arld demarcation is done, the official respondents cannot direct the petitioner Company to stop the mining activities.
For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned notices/orders dated 06.01.2021 and 3I.12.2020 are set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed leaving it open to the authorities to first conduct survey duly putting the petitioner on notice and thereafter in case they come to the conclusion that the land allocated to the petitioner for mining purposes is falling within the prohibited area or in violation of any Forest or Environmental laws, then take necessary action duly putting the petitioner on notice and calling for an explanation artd then passing orders on merits.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if a;ry, shall stand closed. There sha.ll be no order as to costs.,,
The learned Single Judge hasdirected theState Government to carry out the survey dulyputting the writ petitioner on notice and in case it is found that theland allocated to the writpetitioner for mining purposefalls within the prohibited area or inviolationof any forest or environmental laws, liberty hasbeen grantedtothe authorities to pass appropriateordersthereafter.
It has been stated by the learnedGovernment Advocate that for the last one and ahalf year no mining activity is going on andsome timelimit be fixed to carry out the survey and till then thewrit petitioner may not be permitted to carry out any mining activity.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe writ petitioner has argued before this Court thatthe writ petitioner be permitted to lift the materiala.lready mined. However, he has fairly stated thatthe appellantsshall certainly be free to carry outa survey in the matter.
This Court, after hearing thelearned counsel for the parties, is of the opinion that the learnedSingleJudge was justified in granting leave to the authorities to first conduct
survey duly putting the writ petitioner on notice and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with lar,,,.
Therefore, the present w,rit appeal stands disposed of with a liberty to the State Government to carn. out the survey, in the light of the liberty. granted by the learned Single Judge, and to concrude the same rvithin a period of eight weeks from today. It is needless to mention that no mining operation of aly kind shall take place during the aforesajd period, including the iifting of material. The State Government shall be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law thereafter.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs
To,
,TRUE COPY'
SD/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SHARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( l,',
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:2510412022
..',.rE Sl"rt4,
(t)
-)
(.) 0 4 t'14{ 202?
(
ORDER
WA.No.301 of 2022
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
s
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge was justified in imposing a time limit on the State Government to complete the survey and temporarily restraining mining activities.
Whether liberty should be granted for pending mining activities or lifting of materials already mined.
The State of Telangana
Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer (P) Ltd
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
