Disposed

Kavali Veeresham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/8258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Advocates and residents contested a quarry lease granted on the grounds of pollution and health risks. The Court directed local revenue, administration, and pollution authorities to examine representations within three months, deeming it proper to act due to alleged dust and health issues.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to examine petitioners' representations regarding pollution and quarry operations within three months with notice to Respondent No. 8 and assistance of Pollution Board

Kavali Veeresham Vs The State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I321s l

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:8258 oF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

l{qv.al1v-e_q1esham, s/o.^p.o.chaiah, Aged about 36 years, occ. Aqriculture Ryo. H. No. s-9 7/2, La kda ram Viltase, pata"ncneru uanoi[ S;hs;;n.ji'ffi fi"[' " "

¶10

'E!Ei!,q"!!l'[:^,T1,,'f^{y:?l3i**o,lr]nn":oiT.ll,ffl} f-"t,ffi ,; Sangareddy District.

¶11

Machanagari Devender Reddy, s/o. M.Ramchandara Reddy Aged about 34 years, occ Aoricutture, R:/o.H.No.1-16, Lakdaram ViGg"J-i.ti;'JhJ; Mandal, Sangareidy District.

¶12

Machanagari Gopal Reddy, s/o. M.Manik Reddy Aged about 52 years, occ . Agricutture, RJ..H.No.1-i8, Lakdaram^-nittld,, pitl"tte.i--r,r'a"iir, Sangareddy District.

¶13

Ch.Maheshwar' Reddy, s/o Ch. penta Reddy, Aged about 40 years, occ . fgriculture^{Rl/o. tt.trlo.2-g6,Latdaram--Vtttid.,pata'ncffi?ii-'frir""i-"f,} Sangareddy District.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 I!19t91e of rerangana, !ep. bv its principar secretary to Govt rndustries and Lrommer@ uepartment, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad - SOO O2g.

¶17

The Director of Mines and Georogy, Government of reranoana. Mv Home Sarovar Plaza, Shahpunvadi, Adiishnagar, Hyoeraoaci _ stb 0'65:'^'-"'-

¶18

The Telangana State Pollution Control Board, A-3, paryavaran Bhavan. gglqtl'lagar Rgad, Sanarhnagar tndusrriat estate, Siriatirnrs'ri'HyjEi"OrO _ 500 018, Rep. by its Member Secretary

¶19

The District Collector, Sangareddy District Sangareddy

¶20

The Deputy Director of Mines and Georogy, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad

¶21

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (l/c), Sangareddy District, Sangareddy

¶22

The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal patancheru, Sangareddy District

¶23

-------f

¶24

8 Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy, s/o. and age not known to petitioners, r/o. H.No.11-85, lfgnti^{Nagar Colony, Patancheru Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District-} 502 319

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of fifth respondent in granting quarry lease to unofficial respondent for a period of 20 years in an extent of 4 Hectares in Survey No.747, Lakdaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District vide impugned proceedings bearing No.QL/SNR/LO1 1900798, dated 03.06.2022 and consequential proceeding no.492lQ6i2016 dated 01 .O7.2022 of sixth respondent which is resulting in pollution effecting the human lives as also the cattle lives, agriculture fields apart from posing a serious breach to the bund of Lakdaram Pedda Cheruvu and no n-co nsideration of petitioners representation daled 27.O2.2O23 and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional and set aside the impugned proceedings bearing No.QL/SNR/LO1 1900798, dated 03.06.2022 issued by the fifth respondent and consequential proceeding no.492lQGl2O16 dated 01 .O7.2022 of sixth respondent.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶28

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 STAY all further mining activity in an extent of 4 hectares in Survey No.747, Lakdaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District whose permission was issued by the fifth respondent vide impugned proceedings bearing No.QL/SNR/LO'l'1900798, dated 03.06.2O22 and consequential proceeding no.4921Q612016 dated 01 .O7.2022 of sixth respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.V. RAJASREE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.1,2,5 & 6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A. VISHNU VARDHAN REDOY, SC FOR TSPCB

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: Ms. P. VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

1 I i II I I

¶37

THE HON'BLE SMT. JI'STICE^{P.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.E2SE of 2023

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed^{seeking a writ ofmandamus} declaring the action of the 56^{respondentin granting quarry leaseto} unofficial respondent No.8 for a^{period of 20 years in an extent of 4} Hectares in Sy.No.747, Lakdaram Village,^{Patancheru Mandal,} Sangareddy District vide impugned proceedings bearing No.QLlSNR/LO11900798, dated 03.06.2022 and^{consequential} proceeding No.a92/Q6/2016, dated O1.O7.2022 of the^respondent No.6 which is resulting in pollution of the surrounding^{area and} non-consideration of petitioners' representation dated 27^.O2.2023 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to seL-asidc^the proceedings dated O3.06.2022 and O1.O7.2O22 ancl to pass such other order or orders.

¶41

In spite of making the above prayer in the Writ^Petition,Sri Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing^{for the r'.'rit} petitioners submitted that he is limiting the prayer onll' to^a direction for disposal of the representation^{made by the petitioners.} Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that lhe^rcsporrcicnt No.8 lras been grarrted quarry lcase and due to^{qltat-r-'ingooer:ltions} cairied on by him in the subject site, petitioncrs'lancls^{and aiso tl-re} sur:'oundirlg areas including lake "r,ater is being^polluteci tv^tl-rc

¶42

PI"{D,J w P No.8258 of 2023

¶43

¶44

I I

¶45

dust, due to u,hich the1, are facing severe health problems. Therefore, the petitioners have made representations to respondents No.4 as u,ell as respondent No.7. However, the respondents have not taken any action on the representations of the petitioners till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not madc representations to respondent No.3 as they had no know'ledge that representation has to be made to the pollution Control Board as u,ell. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also dran'n the attcntion of this Court to Google Map of tl-re area to demonstrate thrlt the entire area has been covered by dust. He thcrefore sceks a direction to the respondents Nos.4 and 7 to consider thc r-epresentations of the petitioners artd take action thereon.

¶46

Learncd counsel representing respondent No.8, however, submitted thaL t he respondcnt No.8 has been granted quarry lease after submission of all the relevant documents and that the respondent No.8 is carrr.ing on the quarrying operations strictly in accordance uith quarr-r, leasc granted to it. Learned counsel further submitted that this lr,rrr petition is in the nature of public interest litigation and rht:refore. the *'rit petition is not maintainable before this Court.

¶47

PMD,J w.P No.8258 of 2023

¶48

I $i I t I

¶49

¶50

4 [,earned Government pleader for Mines and Geologr is also heard.

¶51

Having regard to the above submissions, this Court finds that respondent No.8 has been granted quarry lease by respondent No.S and the petitioners who are having objections against the activities being carried on by the respondent No.g, have made representations to respondents No.4 and r. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire area has been covered by dust and are causing health probrems to the residents of the area, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents No.4 to 7 to look into the representations of the petitioners dated 2Z .O2.2023 after issuing notice to respondent No.B and take action on such representations with the assistance of the Pollution con tror Board. The entire exercise sha, be compreted within a period of thee (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

6 Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous apptications, if any pending, shall a-lso stand closed.

¶54

SD/-N. CHANDRA SEKHAR ,/ ASSIS NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE toN FICER

¶55

To,

¶56

1 The Principal Secretary to Govt lndustries and Commerce Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad - bOO OZg.'

¶57

2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Govemment df Telangana, My Home Sarovar Plaza, Shahpurwadi, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 5OO OOg.-

¶58

Cq-l.J -

¶59

The Telangana State Pollution Control^{Board,A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan,} Sanathnagar Road, Sanathnagar lndustnal Estate,^{Sanathnagar, Hyderabad -} 500 018, Rep. by its Member Secretary

¶60

The District Collector, Sangareddy District^Sangareddy

¶61

The Deputy Director of^{Minesand Geology, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad} O. The Asiistlnt Director of^{Mines and Geology (l/c), Sangareddy District,} Sangareddy

¶62

Thelahsildar, Patancheru^{Mandal Patancheru, Sangareddy District}

¶63

One CC to SRI K.V.^{RAJASREE, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRI A. VISHNU^{VARDHAN REDDY, SC FOR TSPCB} [OPUCI

¶65

10.One CC to Ms. P.^{VIJAYA LAKSHilrl, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶66

11.Two CCs to GP FOR^{MINESAND GEOLOGY,High Courtfor the Stateof} Telangana. [OUT]

¶67

12.Two Cts to GP FOR^{REVENUE, HighCourt for the State of Telangana.} touIl

¶68

13.Two CD Copies

BN SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410412023

ORDER

../: ..r..::..|.-.=.:
.t .'
I:li ffi3 i
Ii
t.;,

¶76

WP.No.8258 of 2023

¶77

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c"f'^a C9 %

Kavali Veeresham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavali Veeresham 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

Md. Amair Vs Sri.Aravind Kumar, IAS and 6 others

Susheel Kumar Agarwal and another Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana State

Nagisetty Nagendra Rao Vs Shri Giridhar Aramane IAS

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad Vs The State of Telangana

D. Chakradhar Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Smt.Ch.Rajita, Vs The Government of India