Dismissed¶52

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry,tribal Labour Contract Co-Op Society Ltd., v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025WP/1722/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sand mining; extension of time; de-casting of sand; sand bearing area (SBA); Ac.24-90 cents; Rampur Village; Wazeedu Mandal; Mulugu District; tribal cooperative society; agent/service provider; agreement holder; permit holder; in-principle permission; locus standi; standing to file writ; Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015; Articles 14, 19, 21, 300A Constitution of India; Article 226; Section 151 CPC; Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191; writ of Mandamus; dismissed at admission stage; no costs; Telangana High Court; T. Vinod Kumar; W.P. No. 1722 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is to be considered only an agent/service provider engaged by the 4th respondent to undertake excavation of sand for and on behalf of the 4th respondent. ¶49

Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Sand Quarry,tribal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, being only an agreement holder / agent-service provider of the 4th respondent (the in-principle permission holder for sand excavation), has locus standi to maintain a writ petition seeking extension of time for de-casting of sand when the 4th respondent itself did not seek extension of the permission. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

The petitioner is to be considered only an agent/service provider engaged by the 4th respondent to undertake excavation of sand for and on behalf of the 4th respondent.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Since the 4th respondent, being the in-principle permission holder, itself did not seek extension of the validity of the permission granted in its favour, the petitioner, who is agent/service provider of the 4th respondent, cannot step into the shoes of the 4th respondent to seek extension of validity of the permission.

¶50

Key takeaways

The present writ petition as filed by the petitioner is misconceived, the petitioner having no locus standi to maintain it, and it fails.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), W.P. No. 1722 of 2025, decided 22-01-2025, disposed at the stage of admission: A cooperative society formed by members of tribal communities, which had entered into an agreement dt.22.06.2023 with the 4th respondent (holder of in-principle permission granted by the Government under proceedings dt.27.06.2023 for excavation of 4,98,182 cubic meters of sand from a sand bearing area in an extent of Ac.24-90 cents at Rampur Village, Wazeedu Mandal, Mulugu District, valid 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2024), sought a writ of Mandamus declaring arbitrary and illegal the 2nd Respondent's action in not granting extension of time to de-cast the sand, its representation dt.09.01.2025 (application dated 08.01.2025 per I.A. No. 1 of 2025) not having been considered. The respondents contended that under the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 only the 4th respondent, the recognised permit holder, could apply for extension, and it had not done so before expiry on 26.06.2024. Referring to Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191 (mining in scheduled areas by tribals themselves or their cooperative societies), the Court observed that the petitioner-society had itself never applied to the State Government for permission. Held: (i) the petitioner is only an agent/service provider of the 4th respondent; (ii) the permit holder itself not having sought extension, the petitioner cannot step into its shoes to seek extension of the permission; (iii) the writ petition is misconceived for want of locus standi. Writ petition dismissed at admission stage; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

i I I i

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR T} TE LANGANA AT H J5 ESJiJE DOF (Speciat Original Jurii-diction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry.SECOND DAY OF JANUARY .rlve "^'.. TWo THoUSAND AND rwE_rvil

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 1722 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

ifi ,:ffi [if; ffi:,i"-,ffis::t]1"?"nhJil:fl^{,:"3?ri3",:,j?:1"3,.B^i:?r?}

¶10

AND

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

' I3iili,': Mi ne s a nd G eo ros y ""J^{l:'3lffffi [?E} "iJJ:..^{:+:E H!!ff *",} ", bv its cha irma n-cum-Disrrict

¶13

' 83fi 3i:I'fi 5f,[1 8fl?fl "?H[lln?x"o t #iaft:tltj:nt Director of Mines and ceorosy, Murusu, Murusu District,

¶14

M/s.Telangana Sta q,"ii,,"'"?or;,{9liflf+i8l"B,Bi._2_i9g:l.?[f,l,"SJdt,.:;lu j{f :Jo" btock, 3rd Ftoor, KhaTrai6 bao, i vo"]l dioli.lr""ng" nu.

¶15

petition Under Articre 226 or theconstitution or rndia ffi:T]ffil: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not granting the extension of time to de-cast the sand from the sand bearing area (sBA) in an extent of Ac'24 'go cents, situate at Rampur Virage, wazeedu Mandar, Murugu District as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law, unjust, corourable exercise of power, contrary to Telangana state Sand Mining Rures, 2o1s and in violation of Articre 14' 19' 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenry direct the 2ncr Respondent to issue the extension of time to the order dr.22-06-2023 for de-

¶16

¶17

casting of sand^{in an extent of Ac.24'90 cents, situateat RampurVillage'} wazeedu Mandal,^{Mulugu District.}

¶18

l.A.NO^..1 0F 2025

¶19

Petition Under^{section151 cPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the 2"d^{Respondentto considerthe petitioner'sapplication dated} oB.o1 .2025 seeking^{grantof extensionof time for de-castingof sand in the lands} of the^{petitioner by directingthe 3rd Respondentto issue necessary permissions} to the 4th Respondent^{during the pendency of the writ petition'}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI P.SUBASH}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.l & 3 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2 : G.P FORREVENUE}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4 : SRI B.RAMULU}

¶24

The Court at the stage^{of admissionmade the followingORDER}

¶25

IION'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

W.P.No.l722 of 2()25

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geolory appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, learned Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, Sri B.Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶29

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a Cooperative-society formed by the members of tribal communities; that it was granted permission by the 4tt respondent to extract sand from the specihed sand bearing area situated at Rampur Village, W azeedu Mandal, Mulugu District, for a period of one year w.e.f ., 27 .06.2023 Lo 26.06.2024 in a quantity of 4,98,1a2 cubic meters equivalent to Z,gZ,Ogl.2 metric tonnes; and that the petitioner had approached the 4tn respondent-authority as well as the 1sr respondent seeking extension of the validity of the period of the contract for extraction of sand as the petitioner, due to the reasons beyond its control, could not undertake extraction of permitted quantity of sand under the permission granted by the 1"t respondent in favour of the 4tl respondent.

-?-

Peritioner lurther contends that in spite oI it approaching the 4fi responde.nt as well as the lsr respondent seeking r:xtension of the validity of the permit granted in favour of the 4 tj, respondent by submitting a representation, dt.Og.O1.2O2S, thesame is not being considered granting extension of time for excavalion ol sand, which action on the part of the lst and 46 respondents, it is contended as being illegai and arbitrary, and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Per contra, learned Government pleader ancl learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents u.ould submit that permission for excavation of sand was granted ln favour of the 4h respondent urde proceedings, dt.nl1.O6.2023; and that the 46 respondent, on being granted with in principle approval for issuance of permit, had rn turn entered into an agreement q,ith the peti tioner_Societ5r for excavation / extrac tion of sand from the specified sand bearing area under agr.eement, dt.22.06.2023.

¶35

Learned Government pleader further submits that for_ all the purposes under Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 (for short 'the Rules), it is only the 4rh respondent, u,hich has been recognized as permit holder for extracdon of sand and lhe 4d1 respondent having in turn permitted the petitioner-society to extract sand on its behalf under an agreement, dt.22.o6.2o23, if any extelFion is to be sought, it is only the 4m respondent, which

¶36

¶37

can make application seeking extension of time in terms of the provisions of Rules, and not the petitioner.

¶38

karned Government pleader would further submit that inasmuch as the 4e respondent did not choose to make any application seeking extension of the validity of the permission beyond its expiration i.e., on 26.06.2024, the petitioner, who is only an agreement holder under the 4e respondent, cannot maintain the present Writ petition.

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4tr, respondent would submit that in_principle permission for excavation and supply of sand for a quantity of 4,9g, 1g2 cubic meters from the specilied sand bearing area situated at Rampur Village, Wazeedu Mandal, Mulugu District, was granted by the Government in its favour for a period of one year i.e., from 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2024; thar since, rhe petitioner is a cooperative Society formed by the members of tribar communities, the 4tt respondent had entered into an agreement permitting the petitioner to extract sand for and on behalf of the 4ff respondent; and that the 4h respondent had agreed to pay the charges under the agreement for the quantity of sand extracted and loaded into the lorries.

¶40

l-earned Standing Counsel further submits that after the period of one year, as permitted by the Isr respondent utde

¶41

¶42

permlssion proceedings dt.27.06.2023, had expired on 26.06.2024, the 4ff respondent did not choose to make any application seeking extension of the validity of the aforesaid permission; and that the petitioner being an agent of the 4ft respondent can neither call in question the action ol the 4e respondent tn not making an . application seeking extension nor the action of the 1"r respondent in not grantrng such extension.

¶43

9 ' I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶44

The t{on,ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Samatha us State OJ And.hra prad.esh And OTst y.16 that mining operations in scheduled areas can only be undertaken through an appropriate scheme, without disturbing ecology and forest, by the tribals themselves, either individually or through Cooperative Societies composed solely of the tribes with the financial assisrancc of the State or through its instrumenklities.

¶45

1 1. Though the petitioner claims to be a Cooperatir.e_society formed by the members of the tribal communify, it is tcr [s 5ssn that the said Socieg did not approach the Statc Government by making an application seeking for grant of permission for excavation of sand and on the other hand it is thLe 4e respondent, which had obtained permission and in turn, under an agreement.

¶46

'(1997)8 scc 191

¶47

¶48

permitted the petitioner herein to excavate the sand and load the same in the lorries for its transportation.

¶49

Thus, the petitioner is to be considered only an agent/service provider engaged by the 4tL respondent to undertake excavation of sand for and on behalfofthe 4ft respondent.

¶50

Since, the 4e respondent, being the in_principle permission holder, itself did nor seek for extension of validity of the permission granted in its favour for excavation of sand, the petitioner, who is agent/service provider of the 4ft respondent, cannot step into the shoes of the 4fi respondent to seek for extension of validity of permlsston

¶51

Thus, the present Writ petition as filed by the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has no loc,s stand.i to maintain the present Writ petition and it fails.

¶52