IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23609 of 2007 Between: 1. Mediwada Village Grampanchayat, Executive Committee Repby its Member, Madaka Ramana Babu, S/o. Bupathirajulu, Aged about 35 years, Occ : Agriculture, Mediwada Village, Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. V. Appala Naidu, s/o Sri Ramulu, R/o. Badanapadu Village, Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director Mines & Geology, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Sri M. Govinda, S/o. Sriramulu, G. Konduru Village, Makavaraalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent issuing lease of a period of 10 years of quarry lease for Road Metal and Building Stone over an extent of 0.500 Hect. In Sy.No. 1 of Badanapadu Village, Ravikamatam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District to the 4th respondent vice Proceedings No. 1424/Q/27 dt. 24-9- 2007 without following the due process of law which is illegal, arbitrary, constitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents (3rd respondent) to set aside the proceedings dated 24-9-2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the counsel on record. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing lease for a period of ten years of quarry lease for Road Metal and Building Stone over an extent of 0.500 hectares in Sy.No.1 of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District to respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.1424/Q/07, dated 24.9.2007 without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.3 to set aside the proceedings dated 24.9.2007 and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the executive body of Mediwada Gram Panchayat Executive Committee, representing to Ward No.10 of the village. Respondent No.3 had passed proceedings No.1424/Q/07, dated 24.9.2007 for quarry lease for Road Metal and building stone over an extent of 0.500 hectares in Sy.No.1 of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, for a period of ten years to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 is carrying on business of quarry by using explosive like bombing to explore metal in the quarry and because of exploring the quarry the surrounding villages and crops were badly damaged. 4. It is also stated that respondent No.3 had not made any enquiry before issuing the work order to 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent has to get no objection from the people before issuing the work order. Further it is stated that since Mediwada village and the crops surrounding the village were damaged and the people in the village were suffering from TB, Diphtheria, cough, Elephantiasis, Cancer and other pollution related diseases due to the quarrying operations, the petitioners filed representations to the District Collector, District Panchayat Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Zonal Joint Director of Mines & Geology, The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, District Superintendent of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal Development Officer on 12.10.2007 and the same are pending before concerned authority. It is also stated that the executive body of the village had also met the above concerned authorities personally and explained the grievances, but all of them were in vain. The 4th respondent, who obtained quarry contract, is making efforts to cover the defaults of the quarry agreement. The concerned authority had not followed due process of law before issuing the lease agreement to the 4th respondent. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed of Respondent No.3 several of the averments had been denied. It is stated that a quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 0.50 hectares in Sy.No.1 of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District was granted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam in favour of Malla Govind for a period of 10 years and accordingly the office had executed a lease deed in favour of Malla Govind on 24.9.2007 with a condition that no explosives should be used by the lessee for the purpose of quarrying without having any proper license obtained from the competent authority and the lease will be in force up to 23.9.2017. The office issued two dispatch permits for a quantity of 273 Cums. of road metal and permit is in force up to 10.12.2007. The office had requested the Tahsildar, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for issue of ‘No objection certificate’ along with Gram Panchayat resolution in order to process the application filed by the applicant. The Tahsildar, Ravikamatham vide Rc.No.74/07A, dated 28.02.2007 had furnished a report on quarry lease application of Malla Govind and reported that the total extent of land in S.No.1 of Badanapudi village covering an extent of Ac.43-15 cents stands registered as “Hill Poramboke” and there were no houses or valuable properties nearby the land proposed for lease and there was no objection to the public and surrounding ryots for sanction of the lease to the applicant. Further, the Tahsildar had also informed that the concerned Gram Panchayat, Mediwada village also had given their resolution stating that they had no objection for grant of quarry lease in favour of Malla Govind. Further, the Royalty Inspector and Mandal Surveyor, O/o the Tahsildar, Ravikamatham had made inspection and surveyed the applied area on 19.6.2007 and recommended for grant of quarry lease in favour of the applicant and basing on their reports, the office submitted proposals to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, for grant of quarry lease for road metal and building stone over an extent of 0.50 hectares in S.No.1 of Badanapadud village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in favour of Malla Govind for a period of ten years. It is further stated that the office had not received any representation from the ryots of Badanapadu village on 12.10.2007 and further the office received two copies of complaints from the ryots of Badanapadu village, Ravikamatham Mandal on 15.10.2007 which were addressed directly to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and requested for cancellation of quarry lease held by Malla Govind. The office had directed the Royalty Inspector/ Technical Assistant to inspect the quarry lease area and to submit compliance report. Further it is stated that the office is having two technical persons for inspection of all the existing lease areas and to inspect fresh applied areas for both major and minor minerals covering the office jurisdiction of 21 mandals and they control illicit activity and identify illegal quarrying and mining in the jurisdiction and collect penalties from the persons who involve in illegal quarrying and illegal transportation. It is also stated that the Tahsildar, Ravikamatham had informed in his “No Objection Certificate” that there were no houses or valuable properties nearby the land proposed for lease and there was no objection to the public surrounding ryots for sanction of lease to the applicant M. Govind. 6. A counter-affidavit also had been filed by the 4th respondent taking almost similar stand and further taking a specific stand that the 4th respondent has been transacting the operation in accordance with law. 7. In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the specific stand taken in the respective counter-affidavits, if any illegal or unlawful acts are being carried by the 4th respondent, respondents 1, 2 and 3 and staff concerned with those officers may have to look into such grievances and take appropriate action in this regard. Except making this observation, no further positive relief as such can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petitioners are also at liberty to make appropriate representation to the competent authority in this regard, if they are so advised. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: February 26, 2008. Note: Issue CC in two days. //B.O.// BSB ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}