Dismissed

M/s Super Enterprises and another v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC12 Mar 2025WP/28573/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pattadars challenged amendments to the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 that gave TSMDC monopoly over de-casting of sand accumulated on patta lands after floods, seeking permission to de-cast and sell sand themselves. The High Court dismissed all petitions because no specific grounds assailing constitutionality were pleaded, and no ultra vires ingredient was established.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s Super Enterprises and another Vs The… — Mining and Natural Resources | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

lii--,

¶2

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUST1CE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOs: 11967 OF 2016 40484 0F 2017 2834⁶⁸²⁸ AND 7126 0F 2018 AND 28573 0F 2019

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 11967 OF 2016

¶10

Between:

¶11

G.Kavitha, Wo. G. Govardhan Reddy, Age 35^years, Occ^{Housewife, Rl/o} Muchinthala Village, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahaboobnagar^District

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND.^..

¶14

The' State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{lndustries and '} Commdrce Department, secretariat, Hyderabad

¶15

The Director of Mines and Geology, Telangana State,^Hyderabad

¶16

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana^{State Mineral} Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad

¶17

The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District,^{Mahaboobnagar}

¶18

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,^{Mahaboobnagar,}

¶19

The Tahsildar, Maddhur^[Vlandal, Mahaboobnagar^District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat 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} writ of mandamus to declare the action^{of the respondentsin issuing G.O.M.S} No.54, Dated.21.O8.2O15 in consequent^{to the G.O.M.S No.30, Dated'06.0.2015,} authorizing Telangana State Mineral Development^{Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad} i.e. respondent no.3 for the^{purposeol de-castingof sand and other minerals in} petitioners patta land i.e., to an extent of Ac-1-20 Gts land in Sy.No.76/1^situatefl

¶22

f:i

¶23

at PeddaputTom Village, Maddhur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District is illegal, improper, unjust, violate of principles of natural justice.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 15026 OF 2016

¶25

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the G.O lVs.No.54, dated.21.0B.20 l5 in consequent tr: the G.O.M.S No.30, Dated.O6.()5.2015, authorizing Telangana State Minere I Development corporation Ltd., l-lyderabad i.e., respondent No.3 for the purposie of de-casting of sand and other minerals in petitioner's patta land i.e., to an extent of Ac.1-20 Gts land in Sy No.7611 situated at peddapuram Village, Maddhur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar D strict, pending disposal of the above w:it petiticn.

¶26

l.A. NO: 2OF 2016(WPMP. NO : 30396 OF 2016)

¶27

Petition und,:r Section 151 cPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may, be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the additional material paper in W.p.No.11967 of 2016.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.CHANDRASEN REDDy

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRt S.RAHUL REDDY, SpL. Gp, REp. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 40484 OF 2017

¶31

Between:

¶32

Thokala Venk.anna, S/o Thokala Narsaiah Occ Agriculture, Ind,an, aged about 19 .Vgqrr^{Flo SompailiViilage, Burgampahad M?ndat BCdrrctii} k"t-had;;ni District

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

1 State.of relangana, Rep. by its^principar Secretary Mines and rndustries Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶36

2 The Diskict collector and chairman District Level sand, committee, Badradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem

¶37

3 Telangana SIate Mineral Development Corooration Limited Rep. by its

¶38

Managing Director Having its oifice at HIftWSSB' Premises. 4th Floor Khairtabad, H,yderabad

¶39

4,!

¶40

Dr. G. Malsur, Vice Chairman and^ltrla naging Director Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited Office at HMWSSB Premises, 4th Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶41

Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kothagudem,^{Badradri Kothagudem} :^District..

¶42

Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kothagudem,^{Badradri Kothagudem} District

¶43

The Project Officer, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem^District

¶44

Tahsildar, Burgampahad Mandal Badradri^{Kothagurl.emDistrict}

¶45

Station House Officer, Burgampahad,^{Badradri Kothagudem District}

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring^{G.O.Ms.No.54,lndustries and} Commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated^{21-OB-2015 which was amended by} G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustries .and Commerce^{(Mines.l) Department,dated 09-1 1-} 2017 aq-illegal, null, void and arbitrary and^{consequently direct the Respondents} to^{grant permission} to de-cast the^{sand and sell the sand throughthe Assistant} Director of Mines and Geology i.e., 6th^{Respondent to the generalpublic at the} rate of Rs.400l^per cubic meter in the^{local areaof 100 kilometers radius from} patty land.

¶47

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^(WPM P. NO: 50237^{OF 20171}

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} direct the Deputy Director of Mines^{& Geologyand Assistant Director of Mines &} Geology i.e., Sth and 6th Respondents^{to grant permits for saleof sand to the} general public pursuant to the permission^{granted by the District Level sand} Committee in Proceedings No.4124lSand^{12012 dated21-03-2017 forthwith.}

¶49

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:50238^{oF 20171}

¶50

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.54, Industries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, daled 21-08-2015 which is amended by G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustries and Commerce (M nes.l) Department, dated 09-1 1-2017, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5 to 9: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. cP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶53

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 2834 OF 2018

¶55

Between:

¶56

T. Muthiah, S/o Thokala Ramulu Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 45 years Rl/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mahdal Bhadradri Kothagudem Distiict

¶57

Kesupaka Akkamma, Wo Kesupaka Sheshaiah Occ Agricutture, lndian, aged a_hout 53 yenrs Ri/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadridri

¶58

-Kothagudem District

¶59

Bingi V_enkalaiah, S/o Bingi Sayubu Occ Agriculture lndian, aged about 65^' Iears^{Rl/o.SompalliVillage, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri-Kothagudem} District

¶60

Kothapalli Gangaraju, S/o Kothapalli Ramaiah Occ Agriculture, lndian, aqed ?loul^{42 y€'ars Fyo. SompalliVillage,Burgampahad [Vlandal Bhadr;dri} Kothagudem District

¶61

G-angauriJVuthesh, Sio Gangapurisrinu Occ Agriculture, Indian, aged about ?9^{VgqrsRi./o.Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandat Bhadradri Kothagudem} District

¶62

Kommu Muthamma, Wo Kommu Ganapathi Occ Agriculturr;, lndian, aqed a.bout 52 years R/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampa{ad Ma.rbal Bhidridri Kothagudem District

¶63

Manda-Anjamma, Wo Manda Venkat Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 42 Igars^{Fl/o. SompalliVillage, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradrikothagudem} District

¶64

Kesupaka Vr:era Swamy, Occ Agriculture, lndian. aged about 65 years Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudenr District^'

¶65

Nandipati Veeraiah, Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 55 years Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶66

l0.Thokala Pitchiah, S/o Thokala Muthaiah Occ Agriculture, Indian, aged about 99^{ygqrr Rl/o.Sompaili Viilage, BurgampahadMZndatBhadradri koihagudem} District

¶67

.-*,,}

¶68

1'1 .Thokala Chukkamma,^{Wo Thokala Gangaiah Occ Agriculture, lndian,aged} about 55^years Ryo. Sompalli^{Village, Burgampahad MandalBhadradri} Kothagudem District

¶69

Kesupaka Sayubu, S/o^{Kesupala PitchaiahOcc Agriculture'} .lndian'^agg{ aboui 52^ye5rs Ryo. Sompdlli^{Village,BurgampahadMandal Bhadradri}

¶70

j Kothagudem District

¶71

...PETITIONERS

¶72

AND

¶73

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Industries} De'partment Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶74

2 The District Collector and^{Chairman, District LevelSand Committee,} Bhadradri Kothagudem District^{at Kothagudem}

¶75

J Telangana State Mineral^{DevelopmentCgtp.gtgltol Limited,Rep.'} by its Manrsins Director Having its^{oifice at HMWSSB Premises, 4th} Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶76

Dr. G. Malsur, Vice^{Chairmanand ManagingDirector-} -Telangana^State Mineral Develoi:ment Corporation^{Limited Office at HIVIWSSB Premises.4th} Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶77

The Project Officer,^{Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District}

¶78

The Assistant Director^{of lt/ines} and Geology, Kothagudem,^Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶79

...RESPONDENTS "

¶80

petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia piaying that in the circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{orderor direction more particularlyonein} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustriesand} Commerce^{(Mines.l) Department, dated09-1 1-2017 as illegal, null, voidand} arbitrary and consequently^{direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast} the sand and sell the^{sand throughthe Assistant Directorof l/ines and Geology} i.e., 6th Respondent to^{the general public at the rate of Rs.400/-per cubic meter} in the local area of^{100 kilometers radius from patta land'}

¶81

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶82

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of^{G:o.MsNo.84, lndustries and commerce(Mines.l)} Department, dated^{09-1 1-2017, pending disposalof the presentwrit Petition.}

¶83

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶84

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma/ be pleased to direct the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology i.e., 6th Respondent to grant permits for sale c,f sand to the general public / Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (KTPS) pursuant to the permission granted by the District Level Sand Committee in Proceedings No.4124lSand 12012 dated 21-03-2017 forthwith.

¶85

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.EURGA PRASAD

¶86

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3,5 & 6: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶87

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULL,

¶88

WRIT PETITION NO: 6828 OF 2018

¶89

Between:

¶90

Batta Sambaiah, S/o. Bangaraiah lndian, Aged about 30 years Rio. .^{Chikkudugurrta, Ramanujavaram Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District}

¶91

Batla Pullaiah, S/o. Venkanna lndian, Aged about 38 years Rl/o. Bayyaram, Pinapaka [r,4erndal Khammam District

¶92

M. Laxmaiah, S/o. Pullaiah lndian, Aged about 48 years Rl/o. Chikkudugunta, Nrlanuguru Mandal Khammam District

¶93

.,.PETITIONERS

¶94

AND

¶95

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Mines and lndustries Department liecretariat, Hyderabad

¶96

2 The District Collector and Chairman District Level Sand Comnrittee, Bhadradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem

¶97

Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Having its office at HMWSSB Premises, 4th Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶98

The Project Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothaguclem District

¶99

The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kothaguclem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶100

...RESPONDENTS

¶101

Petition undr:r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that^'n the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may pe pleased to issue arr appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in

¶102

.. i-.lt

¶103

the nature^{of writ of [tr'landamusdeclaring G.O.Ms.No.84,lndustriesand} Commerce^{(Mines.l)Department, dated 09-11-2017as illegal, null, void and} arbilrary^{and. consequently direct the Respondentsto grant permission to de-cast} thoi'and and-iell^{the sand throughthe Assistant Directorof Mines and Geology} i.e., 5th Respondent^{to the general publicat the rate of Rs.400/- per cubic meter} in the local^{area of 100 kilometersradiusfrom patta land'}

¶104

IANO: 1 OF²⁰¹⁸

¶105

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to} suspend the^{operationof G.o.Ms.No.84, lndustries and commerce(Mines.l)} Department,^{dated 09-1'l-2017, pending disposal of the present writ Petition.}

¶106

lA NO: 2 oF²⁰¹⁸

¶107

. Petition under^{section151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} direct the^{AssistantDirector of Mines and GeologyLe., 5th Respondent to grant} permits for sale of^{sand to the generalpublic/Kothagudem.ThermalPower} Station(KTPS)forthwithpendingdisposalofthepresentWritPetition.

¶108

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI K.DURGA PRASAD}

¶109

Counsel for^{the Respondents:SRIS.RAHUL REDDY'SPL' GP,} REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE^GENERAL

¶110

WRIT PETITION^{NO:7126 OF 2018}

¶111

Between:

¶112

1 Gurrala saroiini Devi, wo^{Venkata Narsaiah aged about 78 years Rl/o Palam} ' VilllgJvendiprram Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalapally District Rl/o

¶113

1. Solam Chanti^{Babu, S/o Mallaiah} -^{Aged about 30} -years. - V6JriOfruOriu"ram Vittdge Venkatapuram Maidal Jayashankar Bhupalapally District

¶114

...PETITIONERS^,

¶115

AND

¶116

1 The State of^{Telangana,Rep by its Secretary Mines and lndustries} Department Secretariat^Hyderabad

¶117

2 The District Collector^{and Chairman,The District Level SandCommittde} Jayashankar^BhuPalapallY

¶118

Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman and [Vlanaging Director TSMDC Office Khairtabad Hyderabad

¶119

The Project Officer, Jayashankar Bhupalapally

¶120

Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Jayashankar Bhupalapally District Bhupalapally

¶121

...RESPONDENTS

¶122

Petition und,er Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that n the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, ine Higfr Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of W'it of [\ilandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84 ndustries and Commerce^(Mines.l) Department dated 09-1 1-2017 as illegal null void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to^{grant permission} to de-cast the sand and sell the sand through the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology i e 5th Respondent to the^{general public} at the rate of Rs.400l^per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from^patta land.

¶123

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶124

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 suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.84 lndustries and com:nerce mines.l Department dated 09-1^{1 -2017 pending} disposal of the present writ petition.

¶125

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶126

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 Assistanl Director of mines and geology i.e., 5th Respcndent to grant permits for sale of sand to the general public Kothagudem Thermal power Station KTPS forthwith^pending disposal of the present Writ petition.

¶127

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD

¶128

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. Gp,

¶129

REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶130

WRIT PETITION NO:28^{s73 0F 2019}

¶131

Between:

¶132

1, ' tril/s ii,H super No-. o--39, Enterprises, A.a. Guardsi^{A Regd. Partnership} Lakadikapoo-|,^Firm. Hyderabad^Having - ts^le^gistered 500004, Rep' bv^office its Mhnaging Partner,^{Mohammed Zaheeruddin'}

¶133

Mohammed^{Zaheeruddin, Sio Mr.Mohammed NazeeruddinAged} 1b^o-qt^40 - t;;;; il. Business, R/o^H. No.^{12-2-836, Asif Nagar,Hvderabad-500028}

¶134

...PETITIONERS

¶135

AND

¶136

1 ThestateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretarylndustriesand Commerce Department,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶137

2 The Director of Mines^{and Geology, Telangana State,Hyderabad}

¶138

3 The Vice Chairman and^{ManagingDirector,} Telangana State^Mineral Development Corporation^{Ltd., Hyderabad}

¶139

The District^{Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar'}

¶140

The Assistant^{Directorof Mines and Geology, Mahaboobnagar'}

¶141

The Tahsildar,^{MidjilMandal, Mahaboobnagar District'}

¶142

...RESPONDENTS

¶143

petilion under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the"} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to iSSUe a Writ, order^{or direction, more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{or any other Writ, to declarethe action of the respondentsin} issuing G.O.Ms^{No. 54, dated 211O8t2O15in consequentto the G O Ms No 30} dated06/05/20l5authorizingTelanganStateMineralDevelopmentCorporation Ltd., Hyderabad^{for the purposeof de-casting of sand and other minerals over} thepattalands,affectingtherightsofthepetitioners,asillegal'improper'unjust' violateofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandconsequentlysetasidethesame.

¶144

IA NO : 1 OF 2019

¶145

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to}

¶146

¶147

suspend the G.o.tr4s No. 54 dt. 2110812015 in consequent to the^{,lj.o.MsNo. 30} dated 06/05/2015, authorizing Telangana State^{Mineral Development of sand} and'other minerals over the^patta lands affecting the rights of^{l.he petitioners,} pending disposal ol the above Writ Petition.

¶148

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES / SRI K.S.SUNEEL

¶149

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶150

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶151

¶152

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF.'USTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶153

WRIT PETITION Nos.11967 OF 2016 40.444 0F 2017 2434 6a2A AND 7t26^()F 2018 AND 28573 0F 2019

¶154

COMMON ORDER (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice):

¶155

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved,^' on the joint request of the parties, the matters were alalogously heard and decided by this common order.

¶156

W.P.Nos.4O484 of 2Ol7; 2A34, 6A2A e,7t26 0F 2018:

¶157

These petitions filed under Article 2'26 of the Constitution assail the constitutiona-lity of G.O.Ms.No.84, dated^09.11.2017, whereby amendment is made to The Telangana State and Sand Mining Rules, 2O15 (for short, Rules of 2015), issued in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015. One such^prayer is^reproduced for ready reference and it reads thus:

¶158

". .. to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction^more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries and Commerce^(Mines.l) Department dated O9-11-2017 as illegal null void^and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to^grant permission to de-cast the sand and sell the sand throueh the Assistant Director of Mines and Geoloqy i.e. ,Sfr Respondent^to the general^puLrlic at the rate of Rs.4OO/-^per cubic meterⁱⁿ the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patta land..."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Factual Backqround:

The lacts are taken from W.p.No.T126 of !101g. The petitioners p.referred an application in the year 2l) 15 to the Telalgana State Mineral Development Corporation ((.)orporation) seeking permission for de-casting of sand in their pal_ta iands in various vill:rges of erstwhile Khammam District, now Bhoopalapall5, District. The Corporation, after conducting a detailed enquiry and survey, submitted the report to the District l,evel Sand Committee. The hle was pending in the ofhce of the District collector and the petitioners' repeated requests to clear it could not fetch a,y result. The petitioners coulcl not ge,t necessary orders/permis sions to de-cast the sand in their patta larnds.

¶164

Contention of, the petitioners:

¶165

Sri K. tturga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that du:ing rainy season because of floocls. hugr.: sand gets accumulated .n certain agricultural fields which are r;ituated on the banks of river/water bodies. After the rain1. seasorr, the sand needs to be removed, so that the agriculturists can undertake their agricultu ra1 activity. He submits that the Govr::rnment of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015, whlgh-is popularly knovyn as 'New Sald Mining policy'2O14'. Rr.Lle 7 of the Rules of 20 15^.,vas inserted permitting the pattaciars to rle_cast the

¶166

¶167

¶168

sand. Based on this rule, the^{petitioners submittedtheir} application for^{de-casting of sand in their patta lands'}

¶169

The petitioners^{have raised eyebrows on the impugned} amendment thror-rgh^{G.O.Ms'No'54,dated 21'O8'2015'which} reads thus:

¶170

"The de-casting^{of sand in anY} Patta land abutting^{river bed,} to make the^{land suitable forcultivation shal[be bv} M/S Telangana State Mineral De^velopment Corporation Limited'"

¶171

(EmPhasis SuPPlied)

¶172

It is the common^{stand that the procedure prescribedunder} the Rules and^{monopoly given to the Corporation is bad in law'} Because of this^{monopoly given to the Corporation' the delay is} being caused^{inde-casting the sand from the land of the} agriculturists^{whichadversely affects their agricr'rltural activity' If} the permission^{is given to the patta owners to sell the sand'} because of^{competitive rates,the end user will be benefitted'}

¶173

Contention^o fthe^Government:

¶174

Sri S. Rahul^{Reddy, Special Government Pleader} representing^{learned Additional AdvocateGeneral forthe} respondents, supported^{the impugned' GO and urged that the} impugned rules^{are amendedin consonancewith rule niEklllg} power and the^{object of The Mines and Miaerals (Development}

¶175

¶176

¶177

and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act of 1957,). In orrler to avoid illegal sale of sand and in order to regulate the same, the impugned ru le was brought into force and rvere successfully operating for couple of years. Thus, no interferr:nce mi,Lv be made.

¶178

8 No othe:: pornt is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

¶179

9 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶180

FINDINGS:

¶181

This is trite that the constitutionality of a provision must be chalienged bv taking grounds with accuracv and precession. Pertinently, in these cases, there exists no column of ,grounds, at all. It is nece'sary to assa the statutory provision wit.h crarity so that the respcndents may put forth their defence against each of the ground raised with similar clarity. Statutory provisions cannot be interfered with on mere asking. ,-lhus, two requirements rare essential i.e., (i) to set out ground in specific to declare a stat'Jtory provision as urtra uires anrl (ii) to assail the provision in the relief clause.

¶182

¶183

¶184

The^{ApexCourt in its recent judgmentin Union of India v'}

¶185

Manjurani^{RoutraYr held as under:}

¶186

"10. After^{hearingthe learned counselfor the parties and} considering^{the prayer madein the writ petition'it is lucule4t} ii.iB."po?a..ti^{t aia .tot} ""t^o't "t'v^{etot=tt'd"to at"htt nut"} No such,relief^{was evenprayed} @. #![ ,., lr" t h" --. *.it^{p.titi"".-Re"po.rd..tt1 in the writ petition} a writ in the^{natureof certiorarito set asidethe} -"..fV """gfrt ora".- of^{C"AT.Therefore in the given facts'there was no} o."""i".t^{for the High Courtto declare Rule 4(b) as ultravires'}

¶187

declare^{Rule 4(b)as ultra vires "} (Emphasis Supplied)

¶188

t2. In these^{cases, the hrst requirement for assailinga statutory} provision is^{totally missing and, therefore'in view of judgment of} Manjurani^{Routray (supra), no interference can be made'}

¶189

No^{amount of argument couldbe advanced as to how the} amended^{Rule 7 of the Ruies of 2015 runs contrary to any} statutory^{or enabling provision' A statutory provisioncan be held} ultra uires^{only on satisfyingcertain strict parameters'The Apex} Court in its^{recent judgment in Natesh Chandra Agrawalv'}

'(zoz:)s^{scc r+a}

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India2, considered

¶194

previous judg,nents ald culled out the principles as ur:.der:

¶195

"22..

¶196

Thele is a presumption in favour of consr-itutionaLity or validitl' cf a subordinate legislatron and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recogniz,:d that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under aly of the following grounds:

¶197

(a) Lack oI legislative competence to make the subor,1inate legrslaticn.

¶198

(b) VioleLtion of fundamental rights guaranteed undr'r the Constitution of India.

¶199

(c) Violation of any provision of the Cons*itution :f lndia.

¶200

(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is mr,Lde or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repullnancy to the laws of the land, that is, an1' enact ment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness /unreasonableness {to arr ,txtent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules)"

¶201

In these cases, the petitioners could not establish that any

¶202

such ingredient is available on the strength of which .interference can be made on the impugned rule. Hence, these petitions fail and are herebl, dismissed.

¶203

W.P.Nos. 11967 of 2OL6 and 28573 of 2OL9:,

¶204

In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 21.08.20 11,i, whereby amendments are made to the Rules of 2015, issued in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015. One such praver is reproduced for ready refer,:nce a-I1d it reads thus:

¶205

'?^{2024SCCOnlineSC 114}

¶206

¶207

¶208

"...to^{issuea Writ, Order or direction,more parlicularlvone in} of wrii^{of Mandamus or anv other writ' to declare} th;;;;;;. ttrl aJtifriJth"^{.".potta""t" i" i"q'i"sq'Q'Ivl"No' 5a' d"ttd} z-tlog/zots^{ir, .orr".qrJrlt to tht G'o'Ms No' 30 dated} ni'toi t zots^{authorizinsTelanqanaState Mineral} ;#;;;; over. the^{patta lands'} ffiminerals ilr."d"e^{t}r" .ishts of tl're petitioners,as illega1,improper'} ;;;;;: l,lor^t"' ot^principles -of^{natural justice and} consequently^{set aside the same"'"}

¶209

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶210

Factual Backgro^{und andcontention of thepetitioners:}

¶211

The^{facts are taken fromW'P'No'28573 of 2Ol9'The} petitioners^{are partnersof a firm' PetitionerNo'1 is in peaceful} possession and^{enjoyment of certainlands'description of which} are given^{,p ,o p*.3 of the writ affldavit' The principalgrievance} of these^{petitioners is also samethat after the floods' the sand is} being accumulated^{in the patta lands' The power to de-cast the} sand is^{given to the Corporation' The cumbersomeprocedure of} seeking^{permission from District Level Sand Committeethrough} Corporation^{causesserious problem to the petitioners'}

¶212

IT.SriK.S.Suneel,learnedcotrnselforthepetitioners,submits that the^{impugnedGO is detrimental to the interestof the owners} of patta^{lands who had no liberty for the purposeof de-castingof} sarrdarrdselltheSameatmarketprice.Thisinfringes fundamental^{rightsof the pattadars.Thus, impugned notificatiqn} is arbitrary.

¶213

¶214

iA'

¶215

Contention of the Government:

¶216

Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, supported the impugned GO and urgr:d that the impugned rules are amended in consonanc-b ri,ith rule making power and the object of the Act of I9S7 . In or:der to avoid illegal sale of sand and with a purpose to regulate the same, the impugned rules were brought into force and are successfully operating for couple of years. In addition, he subm its that the petitioners in whose lands the sand is being accumul.ted will get a share of sal,e consideration, in case of sale of such s,and. Thus, it cannot be said that policy decision of the Gov ernment is unjustifiable. The policy decision was taken anri. rule was amended in order to ensure black-marketing of sand and ensure uniform pricing of sand in the entire State of Telangan.. Thus, no interference may be made.

¶217

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

¶218

We have: heard the learned counsel for- the parties and perused the record

FINDINGS:

By and^{large the grievanceput forth in these writ Petitions is} saIrLe qua above^{four cases, althougha different provision is called} in question.^{Pertinently,ho grounds' are pleaded separately in} these Writ^{Petitions as well.}

¶223

22- As noticed^{above, a rule cannot be interfered with and} declared unconstitutional^{unlessspeci{ic grounds are pleaded{see} Manjurani Routray^{(supra)}. The test laid down by the Apex} Court in Manjurani^{Routray (supra) is equally applicableto the} instant case.-^{Learnedcounsel for the petitioners couldnot make} out a case on^{the strengthof which the impugned rule can be} declaredasultrauires.Thus,wefindnoreasontointerferewith the impugrred^{rule and the petitionsare liable to be dismissed'}

¶224

Resultantly,^{all the Writ Petitions are dismissed'There} shall be no order^{as to costs. Miscellaneous applications,if any,}

¶225

shall stand^closed.

¶226

,,TRUE^COPYII

¶227

SD,^.MOHD'SMAIL AS SIS ANT REGI^STRAR CTION^OFFICER roPUCl

¶228

,o,, on" *^.,11 ?, lHlff]:),::,'J;l:voca'ie 2.^{One CC to SRI K'S'} \k-

¶229

¶230

'.'.-).-:.?..

¶231

J One CC to^{StRl K DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]} 4 One CC^{to SIi.l BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, AdvocateIOPUCI} tI

¶232

5 One CC to^{M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES' Advocate [Ot']Uc]} 6 Two ccs to^{ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL,Higir courtfor the Stateof} Telangana at^HYderabad [OUTI

¶233