IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.602, 710, 712 AND 713 OF 2010 DATED:07.4.2011 W.A. No.602 of 2010 Between: M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Sri B.V. Srinivas Reddy Bellary … Appellant And Nagam Janardhan Reddy and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.602, 710, 712 AND 713 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. The appellants question the impleadment ordered by the writ Court of four applicants by two separate orders, consequently four separate appeals. The issue being common, all the four appeals are taken up together for final disposal which essentially arise out of impugned order of impleadment passed in W.P No. 26665 of 2009 filed by the appellants against orders bearing F. No.11-244/2008-FC, dt.30.11.2009 suspending the approval granted by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the Act’) permitting the use of a part of a reserved forest for non-forest purposes. Consequently, these four writ appeals, mainly on the ground of a precedent traceable to a common order of rejection of applications of impleadment by a Division Bench of this Court dt.11.12.2009 in W.P.M.P. Nos.33930, 33970, 33971 and 33972 of 2009 in W.P. No.25910 of 2009. 2. To appreciate the application of the judgment, it needs to be noticed that in the said writ petition the order impugned i.e., G.O.Rt.No.723, dt.25.11.2009 was passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh suspending the operation of mining/transportation of mine/mineral from six mines on the ground of encroachment by the lessees whereas in the case on hand, the subject matter of the lis is suspension of clearance/approval granted under Section 2 of the Act by Central Government. The said suspension was ordered based on report of Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on the ground of violation of provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act and environmental laws to protect public interests. Apparently facts of the judgment pressed into service, relief sought for and scope of adjudication are totally different, therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench is not attracted. 3. That apart, there is a clear observation by the learned single Judge that the impleadment of the applicants would help a comprehensive adjudication of the matter. Thus it is manifestly clear that the discretion has been exercised to do complete justice between the parties by adjudication upon all the issues involved. More so there cannot be any denying that power to implead flows to the writ Court from Rules 16(a) and 24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, besides Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On top of all is the approval of the Apex Court to the exercise of such power as recorded in Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue[1] and the relevant para reads; “…But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party.” 4. In the aforementioned backdrop, all the four appeals are dismissed along with miscellaneous petitions. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 07-4-2011 B. Narsinga Rao [1] AIR 1963 SC 786