Disposed

Smt. Dachepally Surya Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024WP/34620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging inaction by Respondent No. 3 in de-casting sand. Court directed Respondent No. 2 (District Collector) to consider a 2022 representation, ensuring a hearing, within 3 weeks. Petitioners granted liberty to file fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to consider the 2022 representation with hearing by 13.01.2025; furnish reasoned order with copy within 7 days.

Smt. Dachepally Surya Kumari Vs The State of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^340s 1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI^BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO; 34620 OF 2024

¶7

Be fwee n:

¶8

Smt. Dachepally Surya Kumari,^{W/o Dachepally PrabhakarRao, Aged about} 67 years, Occ Agriculture Rl/o^{15- 0B- 976 VaradaiahNagar, Khanapuram} Haveli, Khammam District - 507002

¶9

Shri. BattaShekhar, S/o Sarveswara^{Rao, Aged about25 years,Occ} Agriculture Besthagudem Village,Marikala,^{Venkatapuram Mandal,Mulugu,} District.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Principal Secretary Dept of Minesand} Geology Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

District Collector and Chairperson,^{District Level Sand committee District} Collectorate, Mulugu Telangana.

¶14

Vice Chairman and Manging^{Director,M/s Telangana State Mineral} Development Corporation Ltd. ,^{Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶15

Assistant Director of Mines and^{Geology, lr/ulugu, Mulugu District,Telangana'}

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the^{Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} p.leased to issue writ order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof writ} of mandamus declaring the^{inaction of respondentno. 3 from de-casting the} remaining^quantity of⁹¹ 968^{cm3 of petitionerspatta lands is against the Article} 19(1)(g) and 2'l of the Constitution^{of lndia and directthe Respondent No' 2 and4} to further allow the^period of^{de-castingof sand for another12 monthsand} respoMent no. 3 to de-cast^{the sand.}

¶18

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶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 Respondent No. 2 and 4 to further allow the period of de-casting of sand for another 12 months and respondent no. 3 to de-cast the sand.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI RAMESH BABU VISHWANATHULA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

I I

I I

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMTBHATTACHARYA}

¶28

WRIT PETIT^{IONNo.3462O OF 2024}

¶29

Mr' Ramesh Babu Vishwanathula. leained counsel^{for the petitioners'}

¶30

Ma. B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the respoodent^No3'

¶31

Mr. K.Goutham Reddy, learned Asslstant Government^{Pleaderfor Mines and Geolory for lhe resf'ondent} Nos. I and 4-

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Althoughthepetitionerscomplainoftheinactiononthepartof the respondent No.3 in considering^{the petitioners' representationfor} de-casting of sand on the petitioners'^{agricultural [and, the date of} the representation may actually made^{the petitioners liablefor} inaction. The date of representation^{r-nade on 12} 'O5 '2022,^whereas the writ petition has been filed on 04^l2'2O24'

¶34

Learned counsel appearing^{for the petitioners argues that the} respondentNo.3/TelanganaStateMineralDevelopmentCorporation Limited has a statutory obligation under^{The TelanganaState Sand} Mining Rules, 2015 to make the land fit^{for agricultureby de-casting} the sand. Counsel submits that the^{Rules do not provideany time} period within which a fresh Application has to be^{made by the} owner/ pattadar of the land.

¶35

I have also heard the learned Assistant Government^Pleaderfor Mines and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No 3'^The respo';&6nts submit that the District Levcl sand committee is the :: P.o4i4.rfthority to consider and dispose^{of the representation since} 'ffi1

¶36

'-:

¶37

¶38

the said entity has been constituted by the state Government under the Sand Mining Rules, 201S.

¶39

4' considering the submissions made, w.p.No.34620 of 2024 is disposed of with a direction on the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner s on L2.O5.2O22. Since the representation is more than 2 years old, the petitioners are at liberty of filing a fresh representation, if the petitioners are so adviscd. The respondent No.2 shall consider and dispose of the representation by 13.01.2025 after giving an opportunit5r of hearing to the petitioners. The copy of the -reasoned order passed by the respondent No.2 shall also be made available to the petitioners within 7 days from the date on which the reasoned order is passed. Needless to say, the respondent No.2 shall pass the order in accordance with law particularly with regard to the Sand Mining Rules, 2015. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that being marginal/small farmers, the petiti,oners could not approach the Forum within the time, is accepted.

¶40

5' lnterim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and a connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

¶42

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGI$TRAR //TRUE COPYII I ,a! SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

1 The Principal Secretary, Dept of Mines and Geology Secretariat, Sae of Telangana at HyCerabid. i

¶45

2 The District collector and chairperson, District Lever Sand committee DLtrict Collectprate, Mulugu Telangana.

¶46

¶47

The Vice Chairman and Manging Director' Y{t l9l1nS"n' State Mineral
Development co'po"t'on'iio' I linilr.t'uao Hyderabad' Telangana'
a. The Assistant Director "? l'r'ili"'t'""0'C"Jogy'Mulugu' Nlulugu District'
, Ifl:B3:i" GP FoR MINES AND GEoLoGY' Hish court ror the State or
Advocate toPucl
. ntAt A,JrffffiP3fl Loou# ',.,^NATHULA,
7. Two CD CoPies
SA
GJP
k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011212024

I
I

ORDER

WP.No.34620 of 2024

( oR l rrE S 't
g ot JAr zozs
t)
I

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

o
?,o
e4

Smt. Dachepally Surya Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dachepally Surya Kumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Andhra Bank

P.Vidya Sagar Vs Reserve Bank of India

Rekulapally Sadanandam, Vs Medishetty Srinivas

Augh Sign., M/S.Sethi Housing India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and 3 Vs Regional Manager, Rbi, Hyderabad and 2 Others

K. Yellaiah Vs Malladi Malla Reddy

Ganta Srinivasulu Vs Union of India