IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15077 of 2010 Between: K.V. Narasimha Reddy ... PETITIONER a n d The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Enforcement), Srikakulam District and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by K.V. Narasimha Reddy assailing the action of the respondents in interfering and stopping of laying and strengthening of the ramps for quarrying sand and removal of strangled and damaged vehicles in Laxmipuram village, Laveru mandal limits of Srikakulam district. 2. The petitioner participated in the auction conducted on 09- 12-2009 for grant of leasehold rights to quarry ordinary sand from Laxmipuram village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam district, declared as highest bidder having been offered a sum of Rs.8,82,666/-. The District Collector, issued confirmation orders vide proceedings No.4123/Q/2009, dated 12-12-2009. The petitioner paid the entire lease amount along with other charges towards security deposit, stamp duty, VAT, income tax etc. The District Level Sand Committee represented by the Chairman and Joint Collector, Srikakulam – second respondent issued the work order vide proceedings dated 4123/Q/2009 dated 18-12-2009 and executed a lease agreement on 18-12-2009. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that while he was strengthening the ramps, the respondents started interfering with his activity. Therefore, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. 4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 him to use the machinery required for the purpose of maintenance of ramps and removal of the failed vehicles in course of transportation of sand. 5. 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. 6. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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. 7. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 29, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15077 of 2010 June 29, 2010