THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 28264 OF 2011 Date of Judgment: 14.12.2011 Between: Ch. Papi Reddy and another …Petitioners and The Executive Engineer, A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. Nirmal, Adilabad district and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 28264 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the official respondents in not restraining the 7th respondent from quarrying the sand in Kishtapur reach, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad district on the ground that the said quarrying violates the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. The petitioners, who are two in number, claiming to be agriculturists, has filed this writ petition alleging that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had sanctioned Kishtapur lift irrigation scheme in 2007 and while the work relating to the said lift irrigation scheme was taken up, Kishtapur reach was auctioned and lease was granted in favour of 7th respondent for one year under proceedings dated 27.5.2010. It is alleged that the 7th respondent was lifting the sand from Kishtapur reach in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 by digging big pits for more than 3 meters depth, 300 meters width and 100 meters length, causing damage to the lift irrigation scheme undertaken by the Government. Both the petitioners state that they are having agricultural lands in Kishtapur village and Kundaram village respectively which are in Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad district and the paddy crops were getting affected on account of illegal quarrying by the 7th respondent. The petitioners also state that they gave a representation to the Collector, but no action was taken. Hence the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has taken notice, as also the learned counsel for 7th respondent and they have both filed detailed counter- affidavits. By Order dated 14.11.2011, 3rd third respondent was directed to inspect the Kishtapur sand reach and file a counter-affidavit. The inspection report has also been filed on the next date of hearing and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of. The counter-affidavit filed by 3rd respondent states that the Kishtapur sand reach was inspected by technical staff of the Mines and Geology Department including joint inspection carried out by officials of the Ground Water Department. Geo-coordinates were accordingly recommended for sand quarrying and it was approved by Ground Water Department in 2009 and only thereafter, the auction notification dated 24.2.2010 was issued. It is not in dispute that the 7th respondent is the highest bidder for Kishtapur reach and he was granted lease initially for one year from 2.6.2010 to 31.3.2011 with an option of renewal for second year on payment of 20% enhancement and after completion of first year lease period, 2nd year lease was released which was also approved in his favour, subject to three conditions imposed in the proceedings of the Government, dated 30.4.2011 and after due compliance of those conditions, the 7th respondent has been granted lease from 9.5.2011 to 31.3.2012 and he has remitted all the amounts required to be remitted under Andhra Pradesh Mines, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. There is a reference to the inspection report, conducted on 2.12.2011, whereunder 400 to 450 labourers were found engaged by 7th respondent for lifting of sand and no proclainer was found used. It is also stated that to the extent of strengthening of ramps, the 7th respondent approached this Court in WP No. 14173 of 2010 and as per interim orders in WPMP No. 17838 of 2010, he was permitted to use the machinery only for strengthening of the ramps and liberty was granted to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to take action against the 7th respondent by overseeing the said strengthening work by the 7th respondent and to take action as per law, if the said lessee uses machinery for excavation of sand. It is also alleged that certain bits out side the leased area were found to have been dug in the inspection report, dated 23.7.2011 for which a separate show cause notice, dated 5.11.2011 was already issued to 7th respondent and appropriate action will be taken as per his explanation. The 7th respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the auction of the sand quarry lease was made after obtaining requisite permissions including the one under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Geo-coordinates were fixed by the Ground Water Department and requisite care was taken relating to irrigation scheme, structures, buildings and various other issues. The quarry lease has, therefore, no adverse effect on the lift irrigation scheme. The 7th respondent also denied the petitioners’ allegations of working on the quarry lease in violation of any of the Rules and submits that the writ petition is filed mala fide and the petitioners really have no locus standi, as the first petitioner does not own any land in Kishtapur village and the second petitioner is not a resident of Kishtapur village, but he is a resident of Sivvaran village which is at a distance of 10 KMs away from Kishtapur village. The inspection report filed by the Deputy Director of Ground Water Department, Nirmal who has inspected the entire sand reach of 1200 meters length and 500 meters width along with the Assistant Hydro geologist and Royalty Inspector of Mines and Geology Department, states that the marked area of the sand mine will not have any affect on the existing structures. A map showing the structures as well as the sand reach is also produced along with the report. Further the joint inspection report dated 7.5.2010 showing inspection by Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mancherial, Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Mancherial and Deputy Director, Ground water Department, Nirmal is also filed which shows that the sand reach starts from 300 meters from river boundary and no irrigation or drinking water wells are existing within 500 meters distance. The PWS scheme which was reported by the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Mancherial lies 5.00 KMs upstream side of the reach and does not get affected by the sand mining of this reach. It is, therefore, found that the sand reach is downstream side at 750 meters from the PWS well and 500 meters from the irrigation wells and hence the sand reach does not cause any negative impact on the existing ground water resource of upstream side structures. A reading of the technical reports and inspection reports, referred to above, leaves hardly any doubt to conclude that the contentions of the petitioners are clearly imaginary and are made without basic verification of the factual aspects concerning the reach for which the quarry lease was granted to 7th respondent. Further, the present writ petition which questions the working of the lease by 7th respondent does not any where mention that the 7th respondent has already worked on the said quarry for almost one year and 8 months and no allegations of violation of any Rules by 7th respondent, in the past, have been pointed out in the affidavit. Though the 7th respondent has doubted locus standi of both the petitioners, even if it is assumed that the petitioners are farmers and entitled to agitate any illegality in the quarry, on the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality can be said to have been caused by 7th respondent except to the extent of the allegations in the first respondent’s counter regarding the show cause notice issued to 7th respondent. However, in that respect, no final orders have been passed against the 7th respondent and as such it cannot be presumed that the 7th respondent has violated any rule under Andhra Pradesh Mines, Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. More importantly, when the lift irrigation scheme relied upon by the petitioners is upstream at a distance of 750 meters from the reach and the irrigation wells being at a distance of 500 meters from the reach, as noted in the joint inspection report, I am unable to see any ground on which the petitioners can sustain this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. Though I would have awarded costs against the petitioners, but keeping in view they are said to be farmers, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 14.12.2011 KR