APHC010087882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1199 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:- 75 [3506] Aduru Badarinath ...Petitioner Vs. Voggu Krishnaiah and Others ...Contemnor(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 1st September 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioner: K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Advocate(s) for Contemnor(s): T SREEDHAR, T.V.P SAI VIHARI, GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following Order: Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of Director of Mines & Geology dated 27.09.2021, in granting mining lease in favour of respondent No.6 therein in Sy.No.529 B4 of Molakalapundla Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, on the ground that the mining activity would affect historical Siddeswara Swamy temple and other group of temples. Page 2 of 3 2. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with the following direction: 11. In view of this approved modified mining plan, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 6th respondent not to undertake any mining or quarrying of minor minerals except in accordance with the modified mining plan approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, mentioned above. This would ensure that the 6th respondent would not be undertaking any mining activity within 200 meters of the temple. 3. Alleging non-compliance or disobedience of the directions issued above, present Contempt Case is preferred. 4. Respondents have filed memo dated 03.05.2024, along with the copy of inspection report dated 03.04.2024. As per said memo, it is stated that subject area has been surveyed and boundaries were fixed inconsonance with the directions issued by this Court. In order to safeguard and protect the monuments and temples, the mining area has been secured in terms of modified mining plan. Further steps were taken to erect boundary stones and fencing in order to prevent any mining activity in the subject area. The sketch with specific details and photographs of the remedial steps undertaken are annexed along with the memo. 5. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to dispute the veracity of the submissions made in the inspection report, no reply has been filed so far. The record reveals that petitioner also participated in the process of survey conducted. 6. Having gone through the record and considered the material available, this Court is satisfied that respondents have effectively taken steps to mitigate the situation and ensure that the mining lease does not cause any hindrance to or affect the nearby temples. 7. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Case Stands Closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 01.09.2026 ANS