APHC010335072016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26395/2016 Between: D V Krishna Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Prl Secy Mines Dept Hyd 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in initiating proceedings for rejection of the application made by the petitioner dated 20.04.2015 is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 16.07.2016 after declaring that the authorities cannot embarked upon such action without any material pertaining to the application made by the 2 petitioner and direct the respondents to grant quarry lease for road metal and gravel extent of 71.36 Hectares in Survey No.127 Latchannapeta, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur district for a period of ten years….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application in Form-B to the 4th respondent on 20.04.2015 for grant of quarry lease for road metal and gravel to an extent of 71.37 Hectares, for a period of ten years in Survey no.127 of Latchannagudipadu village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur district. The petitioner’s application was sent to Tahsildar, Tadikonda district and also to the District Collector for issue of clarification on availability and NOC for grant of quarry lease. Even though the petitioner made an application in April, 2015, the respondents have not taken any action. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner vide No.2353/Q1/2016, dated 16.07.2016 directing the petitioner to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice as to why action should not be taken for rejection of the quarry lease application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 10.08.2016, granted interim stay of all further proceedings by the respondent authorities pertaining to quarry lease for an extent of 71.36 Hectares in Survey No.127, Latchannapeta, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur district after suspending the proceedings dated 16.07.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent. 3 4. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2016, the respondents have not filed any counter till date. Therefore, the right of filing of counter for the respondents is forfeited under Rule 12 (1) of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977. 5. Heard Mr.K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, there was no report from Tahsildar regarding the petitioner’s application in the impugned proceedings. Further, the Tahsildar alleged to have sent a report pertaining to survey No.127 for which lease was allegedly sought by some third parties. He further submits that the 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner’s application for giving lease to the third party. He further submits that the respondent authorities must initiate any proceedings based upon the material with reference to the application made by the petitioner and the authorities should furnish the information to the petitioner, so that he can take appropriate remedial measures. He further submits that the respondent authorities stating that some plantation is put by the Forest department, but the subject land is not declared as Forest area. He further submits that after the application of petitioner is rejected, the respondent authorities have decided to grant lease in 4 favour of a big contractor. Hence, the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2016 is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings vide No.2353/Q1/2016, dated 16.07.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, this court observed that, the Tahsildar, Tadikonda vide Rc.No.92/2016, dated 27.02.2016 has issued report of NOC in Survey No.127/1 of Latchannapadu village, Tadikonda Mnadal, Guntur district in connection with the application filed by the petitioner and others for grant of quarry lease in the subject area and the details of the report area is as follows: “The applicants also approached the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Hyderabad for not early submission of No Objection Certificate proposals by the Tahsildar. The Hon’ble Lokayukta in their order dated:05.01.2016, 27.01.2016 ordered for disposal of the application within one month from the date of receipt of the order. In this connection, they are enquired the matter and stated that, the land applied for by the applicants for quarrying Gravel is existing in Sy.No.127/1 of Latchannagudipadu Village, Thadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. It is classified as hill Poramboke with a total extent of 176.35 Acres. Some of the land was occupied by the Forest Department and raised plantation. The Villagers of L.G.Pudi filed an objection petition stating that the entire land is being used for communal purpose, eucalyptus plantation was raised by the Forest Department and hence it is not available for issue of No Objection Certificate for quarrying purpose. The Grama Panchayat, Latchannagudipadu also passed resolution on 25.02.2016 and objected for issue of No Objection Certificate for Quarry purpose.” 5 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 16.07.2016 without recording any proper reasons. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 16.07.2016. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The show cause notice No.2353/Q1/2016, dated 16.07.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 30-01-2025 BMS