Disposed

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka Quarry Labour Contract v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024WP/31186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking allotment of a Sand Bearing Area in Mulugu District. The Court held that the petitioner's representation was vague and specific rights were not established, directing the authorities to consider fresh representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the District Level Sand Committee to consider the representation or a fresh one within four weeks and pass a reasoned order after personal hearing.

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka Quarry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^340s J

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31186 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka euarry Labour contract, parasoara sahavakasahakarasangam Limited.. 1negd. Nro. TNrc/rMac/tic0 tiufizsl its {yyavaripeta^{Mandal. Wazeedu,Mulugu-District, (RepresenieO--Oy} President T.Sulochana)

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of relangana, Rep. by the principal secretary to Government, lndustries and Commerce Department, Secretaribt Hvderabail.

¶12

The District Level Sand committee, Repre6ented by its chairman-cum-District Collector, Mulugu District TG

¶13

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Mulugu,T.G.

¶14

J. ]fe l9re9t^{RangeOfficer, WLMDivisionJfuiutugubiitrict,t.C.}

¶15

The District Forest Officer, Mulugu District, T.Gl

¶16

The Forest Divisional Officer, WtM, Mulugu, T.G.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus by directing the Respondents more particularly the 2nd Respondent to consider and grant in-principle and final allotment orders for extraction of sand from the specified sand Bearing Area (s.B.A)Ayyavaripeta, wazeedu Mandal identified in the Godavari River apart from the Sand Bearing Area already allotted to the petitioner by considering the application Dated 3l1ol2o24 submitted on behalf of the petitioner duly declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing allotment orders on the ground that the said sand bearing area is falling within the eco sensitive zone though the said sand Bearing Area is located just 300-500 meters away from the existing sand Bearing Area allotted to the Petitioner sociely and notified as such till date, as being arbitrary, illegal, irrational and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto direct} the Respondents to consider^{Petitioner s applicationdated 3110l2o2asubmitted on} behalf of the^{petitionerfor grantof in-principle allotment of sand bearingarea,} Ayyavaripeta^(v), Wazeed^{(tt/) of [MulugDistrict.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRISYED AZMATULLAH} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos'1TO 3: SRI K.GOUTHAM REDDY, AGP FOR} MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4 TO 6: SRI E.POORNA CHANDAR RAO'} GP FOR FORESTS

¶22

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

i I I

, j1'1f'7
:./

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.311 86 0F 2024

¶28

Mr. Syed Azmatullah, learned counsel for the petitioner_

¶29

Mr. K.Gautham Reddy, learned Assistant Government pleader for Mines and Geolory appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶30

Mr. E.Poorna Chandar Rao, learned Government pleader for Forests for the respondent Nos.4 to 6-

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction on the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03. 7O.2O24 for rn principle allotment of Sand Bearing Area at Ayyagaaripe t Village, Mulugu District.

¶33

The representation dated O3.1O.2O24 is as vague as can be. The representation neither reflects a right nor a specihc demand from the District Collector, Mulugu District.

¶34

According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner-Society seeks to make out a livelihood from de-casting of sands from the particular area in Mulugu District. However, even according to the petitioner's own document dated 08.11.2023 issued by the Forest Department, Government of Telangana, the particular area has been classified as an "Eco-Sensitive Zone" (trSZ). The petitioner however also

¶35

¶36

contains a clocument d'ated'^{04.02.2022which showsthat the} said area now falls outside^{the ESZ.}

¶37

The petitioner has not been^able to^{show any riglrt as to} how the petrtroner is entitled to^{de-cast the sand from the land} of other pal,tadars or any existing^{arrangementby wh ich the} petitioner is doing so.

¶38

The learned Government Pieader^{for Forests as we.l as the} learned Assistant Government Pleader^{for Minessubrnit thal} there are several Government^{Notihcations/ Circulars rel3ulating} the process of de-casting of sand^{from certainareasirLcluding} ESZ.

¶39

After hearing learned counsel, this Court is of^{the view} that the writ Court cannot give any relief^{to the petitione: also in} view of the representation dated 03. lO.2024^{which is incomplete} and does not reflect any specific demand.^{The respondent-} authorities would be the most suitable^{personsto dispos;eof the} writ petition rvith regard to the Records and Circulars^{which are} in their possession.

¶40

7 . W.P.No.31 186 of 2024 is accordingly dispose<l of^by directing the respondent No.2/The District Level Sand Committee to consider the representation dated O3.7O.2O24 or 'r'

¶41

zr'

¶42

¶43

any fresh representation given by the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall give an opportunily of personal hearing to the representatives of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, a copy of which shalr be made availabre to the petitioner within 7 days from the date on which the reasoned order is passed. The respondent No.2 shall be at liberty of taking the Reports hled by the respondent No.4/Forest Range officer, Mulugu District, into consideration before passing the reasoned ordcr.

¶44

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of There shall be no order

¶45

as to costs

¶46

SD./N.RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 [ll:P:ll-S.qT9lary^{to Government,tndustriesand CommerceDepartment,} pecreranat Hyderabad, state of Telangana.

¶51

2 The chairman-cum-District coflector, District Lever sand committee, Murugu District TG

¶52

The Assistant Director, Mines and Geoloqy, Muluou.T.G.

¶53

I he Forest Range Officer, WLM Division, ftIulugu-District, T.G.

¶54

The Districtforest Officer, N/ulugu Distri<it, T.Gi

¶55

The Forest Divisional Officer, WtM, Ir/ulugu, T.G.

¶56

Qne^{CC to SRI SYED AZMATULLAH,} AdVobare tOpUCl

¶57

Two CCs to GP FOR MTNES AND GEOLOGY, H'igfr Court tor ttre State of

¶58

Telangana, at Hyderabad. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

Telangana, at Hyderabad. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

I f.w9^{CCs to Gp FOR FORE'STS,High} Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

10 Two CD Copies

¶62

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112024

ORDER

WP.No.31186^{of 2024}

¶69

1HE S Ta l-5.
lC
: l.) 7 1 IIB'I ml ,-:
!)
]1,

¶70

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

p\ w)

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka Quarry Labour Contract v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukteshwara Adivasi Mahilalsuka Quarry Labour Contract v. State of Telangana

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

M/s. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Sri. Dillikar Vinesh Kumar Vs The Union of India

Bellamkonda Venkateswar Rao, Mancherial Dist. Vs the State of Ts., Mines.I, Hyd.,and 6 Otrs.

Mohammed Anwar Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Balagoni Sreenuvas Goud Vs The state of Telangana

M/s. Iris Meditech Vs The State of Telangana