THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.12442 and 12475 OF 2010 Dated 3rd June, 2010 W.P.No.12442 of 2010 Between: Gummadi Sambasiva Rao …Petitioner And The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: G.P for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.3: G.P for Home W.P.No.12475 of 2010 Didugu Sand and Boat Workers Cooperative Society Ltd …Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt N.Shoba Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 : G.P for Mines and Geology Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P for Home The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are not permitted to use machinery required for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and removal of broken down vehicles. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that under Rule 9-X (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules”), the lessees shall not use poclainers or any other machinery for the purpose of digging/loading of sand in view of the restriction placed under the provisions of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 regarding the depth to which sand is permitted to be extracted. The learned counsel, however, submitted that apprehending that the petitioners may use heavy machinery for excavation of sand, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology is not permitting them to use the machinery required for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and removal of the failed vehicles in course of transportation of sand. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submitted that as wide scale misuse of heavy machinery has come to the notice of the Department, the lessees are not permitted to bring heavy machinery into the sand mining areas to prevent misuse of machinery by excavating sand. In my opinion while the lessees are strictly prohibited from using heavy machinery such as poclainers for excavating sand, at the same time, they shall be permitted to use the machinery required for strengthening of the ramps and also to attend to the vehicles which are either stuck or have failed in the course of transportation of sand either in the riverbed or otherwise. In order to ensure that the machinery is not misused for the purpose of excavation of sand, the petitioners shall intimate in writing to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology concerned giving the details of the work which is required to be attended to and the machinery which is proposed to be used. It is only after giving such intimation that the petitioners can deploy the machinery required only for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and attending to the vehicles which have failed or got stuck. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology or any other competent authority shall be at liberty to depute any of their subordinates to oversee the proposed work of the lessees. It is made clear that if the lessees use the machinery for the purpose of excavation of sand, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/the competent authority is entitled to take action according to law. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petitions, WPMP Nos.15694 and 15728 of 2010 in W.P.Nos.12442 and 12475 of 2010 respectively filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd June, 2010 Note: Issue C.C in two days vrn