HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24885 of 2010 DATE: 24.12.2010 Between : Pakala Ramana Reddy & others. …..Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Mines and Geology Department & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24885 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 5 in granting quarry licenses to respondents 6 to 8 in Sy.Nos.818 and 447 of Annaram village, as illegal and arbitrary, and for issuance of consequential directions to cancel the mining/quarry licenses granted in favour of respondents 6 to 8. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is alleged that all the petitioners are the residents of Annaram village and that they belong to different communities and are from different walks of life. It is their grievance that in view of quarry licenses granted to respondents 6 to 8, they are using blasting material for cutting and crushing the stones and the same is resulting in noise and dust pollution. It is also their case that by virtue of the above said quarrying activities by respondents 6 to 8, the wild animals, which are not able to bare the pollution on the hillocks, are entering into the village, posing threat to the people and the livestock. It is also stated that abutting the land in Sy.No.819, which is admeasuring 125 acres, there is a drinking water tank in Sy.No.831, which is the main water source to the residents of Annaram village. It is alleged that the hillock called Uragutta, which is situated in an extent of 125 acres in Sy.Nos.818 and 819 in Annaram village, is contiguous to the hillock of Jaggaiahpet village, and another hillock of Nagulagutta village. It is stated that on hillock, there are ancient sculptures of Nagadevathas, where the people of the village offer worships and that a high school and elementary school are within a distance of ½ kilometer and ¾ kilometer respectively from Nagulagutta, where the quarrying operations are being carried on by respondents 6 to 8. It is stated that the Grampanchayat also conducted Gramasabha on 14.04.2010, and passed a resolution to make a request to cancel all the mining activities on the hillock. It is also alleged that due to using of dynamites, there are vibrations, which are resulting in cracks in the walls of the houses in the village. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Karimnagar. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the applications for grant of quarry leases, were filed by respondents 6 and 7 for colour granite over 2 hectares and 4 hectares respectively in Sy.No.447 of Annaram village of Manakondur Mandal in Karimnagar District, for a period of 20 years. It is stated that when Tahsildar, Manakondur was addressed, he has reported that the land in Sy.No.447 is Government land, having a total extent of 23.13 acres and it is also reported that there are no historical monuments, temples, school buildings or residential houses near to the proposed lease area. A reference is also made to the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat, expressing no objection for grant of leases to respondents 6 and 7. While referring to the recommendations made by the Assistant Geologist in the proposal sent to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, it is stated that the said authority has granted quarry lease for colour granite as per provisions under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and Granite Conservation Development Rules, 1999 and the quarry leases were executed in favour of respondents 6 and 7 over an extent of 2 hectares and 4 hectares respectively, in Sy.No.447 of Annaram village for the period from 03.04.2010 to 02.04.2030 and 06.04.2010 to 05.04.2030 respectively. In the counter, it is further stated that the quarrying for granite involves usage of machinery that would cut blocks of granite and that no blasting operations can be involved and the process of cutting by wire saws does not even emit quantities of dust that can be reckoned. It is stated that there cannot be any pollution that is caused by quarrying for the granite. With reference to respondent No.8, it is stated that it has applied for grant of lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 2 hectares in Sy.No.819 of Annaram village of Manakondur Mandal in Karimnagar District. Referring to the application and proposal sent by the concerned authorities, it is stated that the quarry lease was executed on 22.07.2010 for a lease period up to 21.07.2020 over an extent of 2 hectares in Sy.No.819 of Annaram village. With reference to the distance limits from quarrying sites to the village, schools etc., it is stated that respondents 6 to 8 have produced a copy of the Memo bearing No.B/215/10, dated 06.10.2010, issued by the Tahsildar, Manakondur, stating that the land in Sy.No.819 is at a distance of 2 kilometres from the village and 1.25 kilometres from Anjaneya Swamy temple and the village tank. With reference to the black granite quarries, it is stated that the Government land in Sy.No.447 of Annaram village is at a distance of 1 kilometre from the village, Anjaneya Swamy temple is at a distance of 2 kilometres and the village tank is at a distance of 2.5 kilometres from Sy.No.447. 4. On similar lines, another counter affidavit is filed by the unofficial respondents. In their counter, while referring to the various proceedings issued by the authorities under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, respondents 6 to 8 have denied the allegations made by the petitioners with regard to pollution in the village and in the village tank. It is stated that the hillocks around the village are not the catchment areas for the village tanks and it is stated that the sites in question are away from temples, village tank and the village. It is alleged that respondent No.8 has not yet started the quarrying operations and that the erection of crusher is under process, and only civil works are taking place. It is stated that the petitioners are demanding heavy amounts for purchase of their lands and when there was a refusal, they have threatened that they will stop the quarrying operations. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-Pollution Control Board, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, has placed on record, a letter, dated 20th October 2010, issued by the Environmental Engineer, addressed to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Legal), and also the consent order for establishment, issued in favour of respondent No.8. In the letter, it is stated that respondents 6 and 7 are granite units, and the 8th respondent-industry has obtained quarry lease in Sy.No.819 of Annaram village and the A.P. Pollution Control Board has not granted any license to granite/quarry lease. It is further stated in the report that the 8th respondent has not yet installed the stone crusher. A copy of the consent for establishment, issued by the A.P.Pollution Control Board in favour of respondent No.8, is also placed on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-A.P. Pollution Control Board and Smt.N.Shobha, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8, and also perused the reports placed on record by the 5th respondent-Pollution Control Board. 7. In this writ petition, it is to be noticed that on the applications filed by respondents 6 to 8 for grant of quarry leases, after calling for report from the Tahsildar of Manakondur, proposals were sent to the Director of Mines and Geology. Based on the recommendations made, the Director of Mines and Geology has passed orders, granting lease in favour of respondents 6 to 8. So far as respondents 6 and 7 are concerned, they were granted leases for black granite in Sy.No.447 in an extent of 2 hectares and 4 hectares respectively, and similarly, the 8th respondent was granted lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of 2 hectares in Sy.No.819. The orders issued by the Director of Mines and Geology are not questioned in this writ petition. Though the petitioners have questioned the grant of lease in Sy.Nos.818 and 447 of Annaram village, from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it is clear that there is no lease granted in Sy.No.818, but the leases granted in favour of respondents 6 to 8 are covered by Sy.Nos.447 and 819 of Annaram village. The grant of lease for colour granite, building stone and road metal are covered by the Statutory rules, namely, the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Though there are separate orders passed by the Director of Mines and Geology, who is the authority for grant of lease, said orders are not challenged in the present writ petition. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is in general terms, without reference to any of the proceedings granting lease in favour of respondents 6 to 8. Though it is the allegation of petitioners that pollution is being created by grant of leases in favour of respondents 6 to 8 as the sites in question are nearer to the village and the drinking water tank of the village, temple and schools, the learned counsel for petitioners did not bring to the notice of this Court, of any violation of the Rules made under the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that the leases granted in favour of respondents 6 and 7 are for colour granite and it is clearly stated in the counters that no blasting operations are involved in granite quarrying and the process adopted is cutting by wire-saw method, which will not emit any quantity of dust that can be reckoned. Even with regard to the building stone and road metal also, there is consent for establishment, issued by the 5th respondent-A.P.Pollution Control Board, in favour of respondent No.8. It is stated in the counter affidavits that no permission is granted yet, to start the operations by respondent No.8. From the counter affidavits filed and the certification made by the concerned Tahsildar, it is stated that the land in Sy.No.447 is at a distance of 1 kilometre from Annaram village, 2 kilometres from Anjaneya Swamy temple and at 2.5 kilometres from the village tank. As certified, even with regard to the land in Sy.No.819, it is also at a distance of 2 kilometres from the village, and at 1.25 kilometres from Anjaneya Swamy temple and the village tank. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any further material to show that such distances are not correct, it cannot be said that there is dust pollution having regard to the proximity and nearness to the village. Though it is the specific case of the petitioners that due to blasting operations, there are cracks in the walls of the houses, but except a general and vague allegation, no particulars of such houses are given in the affidavit. Looking at the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the allegations are in general terms, without any particulars with regard to the damage caused or pollution created on account of leases granted in favour of respondents 6 to 8. In the absence of pointing out the specific violation of any of the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and in the absence of questioning the orders passed by the competent authority, granting such leases in favour of respondents 6 to 8, petitioners are not entitled for any relief. It is also to be noted that Annaram Grampanchayat has also passed resolution for grant of no objection for grant of leases, and only thereafter, leases were granted in favour of respondents 6 to 8. In that view of the matter, and in the absence of pointing out any illegality in the orders passed by the competent authority, granting leases in favour of respondents 6 to 8, no directions can be granted as prayed for in this writ petition. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th December 2010 ajr