Disposed

S.D. Ejaz v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/35791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to direct the District Level Sand Committee to decide his application for extension of time to de-cast sand on his patta land, having obtained Collector approval under the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015. The Court directed the DLSC to consider and dispose of the application within four weeks in accordance with law and inform the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/DLSC to consider petitioner's application dated 13.12.2024 per the 2015 Rules within four weeks and inform the petitioner of the decision within two days.

S.D. Ejaz Vs The State of Telangana — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I i

¶2

[^340s ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} ' - (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,^{THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMIBHATTACHARYA}

¶7

WRIT PE^{TITIONNO:35791 0F 2024}

¶8

Between: S.D. Eiaz,^S/o S.D. Khaia,^{aged 43 years,Occ' Agriculturist'Rl/o} H.No.169/4, Podmur' rvr"rnl-u'ptt?Viuit"andMandal,MuluguDistrict

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

' The State^{of Telangana,} B"P'^{by its Principal Secretary' Mines and Geology} Department,^{Secretariat'Hyderabad} '^{I elangana'}

¶12

Rep. by its^{Chairman-cum-District}

¶13

1. The District^{Level Sand Committee'} -' Coilector, Mulugu District' Telangana

¶14

The^{Assistant Director,of Minesand} Geology^{Muugu, Mulugu District'} Telangana

¶15

M/s.Telangana^{State MineralDevelop-mentCorporation Ltd' Rep' by its Vice} Chairman^{anO ttltanagrns'' ili'"Jtbi'-bio'6j2-91'5' HMWSSB premises' rear} ;#ii: ffi^{r]oo., knii'ita"oad,Hvderabad'Telansana'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article226 ot lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to issue^{Writ,Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{decraringthe inaction of the 2nd Respondent in not granting} the extension^{of time to de-castthe sand for the sand bearing area on the} petitioner's land^{in Sy.No"l91 to an extent of Ac'1'34Gts situated at Mangapeta} village and^{Mandal as arbitrary, illegal'contrary to law' unjust' colourable} exercise of^{power, contrary to TelanganaState Sand Mining Rules' 2015 andin} violation of^{Article 14, 'lg' 21 and 300-4of the constitutionof lndiaand} consequently^{direct the 2nd Respondent to issue the extensionof time to the} permission d1.27^{-06-2022for de-casting of sand from the petitioner'slandin}

¶18

,/ Sy.No. 191 to an extent of Ac.'l .34 Gts., situated at lrrlangapeta^village and Ma nda l.

¶19

lA 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 2nd Respondent to consider the^petitioner's application dated 13.12.2024 seeking grant of extension of time for de-casting of sand in the lands of the petitioner by directing the 3rd Respondent to issue necessary^permissions to the 4th Respondent during the^pendency of the writ^petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SUBASH

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 3: SRI G.ANANTHSEN REDDY, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.RAMULU

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI^BHATTACHARYA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.35791OF 2024

¶28

Mr. P.Subash, learned counsel for the^petitioner-

¶29

Mr. G.Ananthsen Reddy, learned Government Pleader^{for Minesarld Geolosl for therespondentNos'l} and 3.

¶30

Mr. B.Ramulu, learned standrng Counsel^{for the respondentNo 4}

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus on the^{respondentNo'2/The} District Level Sand Committee^(DLSC) to^considerthe representation/application made^{by the petitioneron 13.12'2024for} de-casting of sand on the^{petitioner's land.}

¶33

The admitted facts, as shown^{by learned counsel appearing for} the petitioner is that the^{petitioner has crossedthe stage of Rule 7 of} The Telangana State Sand^{Mining Rules, 2015 (for short the 2015} RulesJ including Rule^{7(3) thereafter which requiresthe respondent} No.2/DLSC to examine the^{proposals on de-casting of sand from} Patta land and accord its approval.

¶34

The petitioner's case^{is that the petitioner has alreadyobtained} the approval of the District^{Collector under Rule 7(3) of the 20 15} Rules. The District Collector^{granted approvalon 27.06'2022'TF,e} petitioner has also crossed Rule^{7(a)(d) which contemplatesthe} respondent No.4/Telangana^{State MineralDevelopment Corporation} Ltd., (TSMDC) to enter into an^{agreement in the prescribed form} with the respondent No.3/The Assistant^{Director of Mines and}

¶35

¶36

Geolory for the proposed de-casting of sand.^{This wouldbe evident} from an order 1:assed by the respondent No.3 on^13.03.2024 permitting the respondent No.4/TSMDC to extract and transport decasting of sand for a specified quantity for a^period of^{4 months i'e',} from i3.O3.2024 to 12.O7.2024.

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities concerned could not de-cast the sand since there is a heav5r flooding in the Godavari River till recently. The petitioner has accordingly made a fresh representation/application to the authorities on 13.r2.2024.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner's representation/ application may be disposed of by the respondent No.2/DLSC.

¶39

W.P.No.35791 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/DLSC to consider the representation/application made by the petitioner on 73.12.2024 and take steps in accordance with law as provided under The Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 within a period of 4 weeks frorn 2l.|Z..ZOZ+. The petitioner shall be informe<l of the statutory permission/decisron within 2 days from the date on which the petitioner's representation/application is disposed ol Interim

¶40

¶41

orders, if any, shall stand vacated and aII connected applications are

¶42

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶43

sD/- N.SRI ARI ASSISTANT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION O ICER

¶44

To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Mines and^{Geology Department, Secretariat,} Hyderabad, Telangana, State^{of Telangana.}

¶45

The Chairman-cum-District^{Collector, District Level Sand Committee,Mulugu} District, Telangana

¶46

The Assistant Director, of^{Minesand Geology Muugu, MuluguDistrict,} Telangana

¶47

The Vice Chairman and^{Managing Director,M/s.TelanganaState Mineral} Development Corporation Ltd,^{0/0.6-2-915,HMWSSB premises, rearblock,} 3rd Floor, Khairatabad, Hyderabad,^Telangana.

¶48

One CC to SRI P.SUBASH,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRI B.RAMULU,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR^{MINES AND GEOLOGY, High Courtfor the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2011212024

ORDER

1 gi glATt:
7
a
f o
2[ sE[ N[
r) .'
.+ J-r::.: c

¶60

WP.No.35791 of 2024

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

Sr
,)c}tr

S.D. Ejaz v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.D. Ejaz 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

Ch. Sarojana Vs SangalaSundaraiah (died)

Kodati Manemma Vs Ramakistaiah (died)

Bhoopathi Reddy Rondla Vs The Union of India

M/s Skr Constructions Vs Telangana Urban Finance Infrastructure

Puduri Rajesh @ Rajesham Vs Union of India

Appannapally Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana