APHC010121402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6644 OF 2n2fi Between: 1. G.V.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Muni Venkat Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ Agriculture, T. Gaddur Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. B. Chandrappa, S/o. Laxmanna, Aged about 55 years, Occ; Agriculture, T. Gaddur Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. E.Sindhu, D/o Gummireddy Aged about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture Gaddur Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District 4. G.Ramappa, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kothuru Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. T. ...Petitioners AND 1.. The State of'Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District, 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh B- Block 5*^ and 6*^ Floors, Sri Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnafn Vijayawada. 4. The Divisional Mines and Geology officer, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 5. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Board Control, Rep by its Secretary, D.No. 33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamvari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, Chittoor District. 7. The Tahasildar, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 8. G S Venkatesh Reddy, S/o. G. Sreenivasa Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Business R/at. Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. D.No.9-146/2, T. Gaddur Village ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring an assailing the Proceedings, No. 3340/Q1/2019, dated 11-09-2023 issued by the respondent No.4 in granting Quarry lease in favor of respondent No.8 for road metal and building stone over an extent of 1.795 hectors in Sy.No. 1004/4, AP, 1004/27, and 1006/2AP of Theertham Revenue Village fields, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, based on the erroneous proceedings in Roc.A1/193/2019, dated 05-11-2019, submitted by the respondent No.7 as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set- aside the Proceedings, No. 3340/Q1/2019, dated 11-09-2023, issued by the respondent No.4. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased o suspend the Proceedings dated 11-09-2023, issued by the respondent No.4 and pending disposal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider petitioners representations, dated 04- 03-2025 and take immediate necessary action on the same, and pending disposal of the writ Petition. ,r lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit the W.P. No. 6644 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL FOR APPCB Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI K. SRINIVAS The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010121402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6644/2025 Between: NARAYANA REDDY, S/0. MUNI VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 OCC AGRICULTURE, T. GADDUR VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLI 1.G. YEARS MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 B. CHANDRAPPA, S/0. LAXMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, T. GADDUR VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3.E.SINDHU, D/0 GUMMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE T. GADDUR VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4.G.RAMAPPA,, S/0. AGRICULTURE, MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BAIREDLAPALLI R/0. KOTHURU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, AS PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARY, MINES AND VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF AND 6TH FLOORS SRI 3.THE 4 THE DIRECTOR OF MINES ANDHRA PRADESH B-BLOCK 5TH ANJANEYATOWERS IBRAHIMPATNAM VIJAYAWADA. 5.THE DIVISIONAL MINES and geology officer, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 6.THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION BOARD CONTROL, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, D.NO. 33-26-14 D/2, NEAR SUNRISE HOSPITAL, PUSHPA HOTEL CENTRE, CHALAMVARI STREET, KASTURIBAIPET, VIJAYAWADA. 7.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 8.THE TAHASILDAR, BAIREDLAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 9.G S VENKATESH REDDY, S/0. G. SREENIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/AT. D.NO. 9-146/2, T. GADDUR VILLAGE, BAIREDLAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring an assailing the Proceedings, No. 3340/01/2019, dated 11-09-2023 issued by the respondent No.4 in granting Quarry lease in favor of respondent No.8 for road metal and building stone over an extent of 1.795 hectors in Sy.No. 1004/4, AP, 1004/27, and 1006/2AP of Theertham Revenue Village fields. Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, based on the erroneous proceedings in Roc.AI/193/2019, dated 05-11-2019, submitted by the respondent No.7 as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitiones under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently setaside the Proceedings, No. 3340/01/2019, dated 11-09- 2023, issued by the respondent No.4 and passsuch lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider petitioners representations, dated 04-03- 2025 and take immediate necessary action on the same, and pending disposal of the writ Petition lA NO: 3 OF 2025 3 df Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit the W.P. No. 6644 OF 2025 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.KSRINIVAS 2. Y SOMA RAJU 3.YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSELAPPCB 4. 5.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sudeepthi Potiuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the 1®' and 4*'^ respondents, Sri Burlu Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for Sri YSoma Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB, Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the 8'^ respondent. The challenge in the Writ Petition is against the proceedings of the 4'^ respondent in granting quarry license for road metal and building stone over an extent of 1.795 hectors in Sy.No. 1004/4, AP, 1004/27, and 1006/2AP of Theertham Revenue Village, Bairedlapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of 8'^ respondent. 2. The petitioners, who, claiming to be having agricultural lands in the close vicinity of the subject quarry lease area contends that the impugned 3. quarry lease in favour of the 8^' respondent has become hazardous residents of the village around 500 meters away. It is stated that there is also an elementary school wherein around 60 children below 11 to the years of age are studying. It is further contended that the population of the village is around 3000, based on an erroneous report submitted by the Tahsildar , a mining lease was granted in favour of the 8^' respondent. It is also the petitioners’ case that the signatures of the villagers were forged in the statement said to have been recorded. Thus assails the proceedings of the 4 respondent as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently sought the setting aside of the same. Thus, the petitioners contend that the subject quarry lease is causing damage to the agricultural fields, not only affecting the health of the villagers but also resulting in sleepless nights for the residents, because of the blasting operations conducted during nighttime hours. This Court on 19.03.2025, directed the 4‘^ respondent to conduct joint inspection pursuant to the representation of the petitioners dated 04.03.2025. In pursuance thereof, the joint inspection was conducted by the Revenue and the Department of Mines and Geology. The same has been placed on record along with the counter affidavit of the 5*^ respondent. 4. 5. Perusal of the same would reflects that as on the date of inspection, the quarry was not in working condition with no men and machinery being at work. The distance of the village is stated to be around 522 to 620 meters from the quarry area and the elementary school is at a distance of 522 meters. The agricultural fields of the petitioners are at 5 320 meters away from the quarry area. And the canal at 75 meters, volume of the excavated pit is 4,986 cubic meters, mineral available at the site was found to be 1,236 cubic meters, it is further stated the petitioners did not apply for transit permits as on the date of inspection, respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the Tahsildar issued No Objection Certificate reporting that the subject land is classified as distance of 1 km from residential locality of T-Gaddu. r th 6. The 5 AWD and is at a further stated that with regard to the allegation that the blasting at the quarry area has resulted in the buildings being damaged, the & 6*'' respondents have conducted an inspection pursuant to the said news was 7. It is being published in the newspapers. They have found that the quarry located 550 meters away, and it was not in working condition. And the whose land is situated in Sy. No.1005 has stated that he adjacent land owner objection to operating the mine. Regarding the building allegedly has no been noted that the alleged blasting operation in the quarry damaged, it has could not have caused the damage. It is further stated that, as per the area orders of the National Green considered while grating permission for quarrying stone is as follows. Tribunal, the prescribed minimum distance to be Location Minimum Distance Mining Type When Blasting is not involved "When Blasting Ts involved SI.No. Residential / Public Buildings, Inhabited sites locations to be considered by states. 100 Mt A 200 Mts ** B 6 8. It is further stated that the lease holder necessary permissions from the clearance, consent for establishment that habitations around the lease has obtained all mines as well as the environmental consent for operation. Thus submitted area and the structures are at safe distance and the unofficial respondent ahs erected boundary pillars around the leased area as part of safety measure. Having regard to the same, it is submitted that the allegation made by the writ petitioner without dismissal of the Writ Petition. any basis and prays for 9. The unofficial respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the subject lease was granted in his favour after following due procedure under law. And the writ petitioner has also filed representation seeking cancellation of the quarry lease and only with a political motive, the writ petition has been filed. The officials have conducted inspection pursuant to the directions of this Court and they have not found any discrepancies/irregularities. Thus prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. Considered the rival submissions. As seen from the record, the subject quarry area is around 550 to 600 meters away from the residential locality and is at a distance of 320 meters from the agricultural fields of the petitioners. The said distances are considered to be safety distances in terms of the orders/guidelines of the National Green Tribunal. 11. 7 Having regard to the report submitted by the inspection team, this Court finds no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, safest distance from the village and 12. since the quarry area was found to be at a the attributions made by the petitioners for damage of the house(s) requires a recording a finding of fact as to the nature of the damage. On the other hand, the inspection team also conducted survey at the same building and found that the damage to the said house is not an account of the blasting but was on account of its structural flaw. And it is also stated by the respondents that the unofficial respondents have taken safety measures and erected all safety pillars around the quarry area. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the 13. submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no 14. order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy REGiSTR^. ^FFIC^R //TRUE COPY// SECTl To, 1. One CC to M/s S Parineeta, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, Standing Counsel for APPCB [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Mines & Geology, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] G. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 6644 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS I