\ % ARHC010343912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0ii?0 TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 801 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.06.2025 in lA No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.14020 of 2025 on the file of High Court. Between: V. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, aged 56 yrs, R/o. Plot No.401, B.R. Residency, Nirmala Nagar, Anjaiah Road, Ongole, Prakasam District,Andhra Pradesh. Office Address Surendranagaram Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal.Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER AND 1. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor Town and District. 4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor Town and District. 5. The Tahsildar, Karvetinagaram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. The District Forest Officer, Tirupathi Division, Tirupathi Town and District. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor Town and District. 8. The Station House Officer, Karvetinagaram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 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 to suspend the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 14020 /2025 dt.30-06-2025 by allowing the relief as sought in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.14020/2025 by granting the transit permits to transport the mineral extracted from the quarry lease area, pending disposal of the present writ appeal in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.6:GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 & 8: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-44 \ [3483] APHC010343912025 AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 801 of 2025 V Venkateswara Reddy ...Appellant Vs. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant Dr. Venkata Reddy Dhonti Reddy, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vardhineedi Sai Kiran (AoR) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Mines and Geology for R.1 to R.3. GP for Forests for R.6 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 15*^ July, 2025 Per Dhirai Singh Thakur, CJ forah : DATE The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 30.06.2025 passed in IA.No.1 of 2025 in WP.No.14020 of 2025. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: By virtue of an order, dated 13.12.2019, the Director of Mines and Geology granted a mining lease for a period of twenty years in favour of the petitioner (appellant herein) over land measuring two hectares falling in Sy.No.714 of Surendranagaram Village, Chittoor District. HCJ&RCJ, WA_801_2025 While the mining operations were on, the District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor, issued an order, dated 20.05.2025, ordering suspension of the quarry operations. This order of suspension was ordered on the basis of certain objections raised by the District Forest Officer, Tirupati Division, who reported that the site was situate within a distance of 120 meters from the Nisankaduragam Reserve Forest and that as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980, no non-forest activity, including quarrying, was permitted on forest land or land adjoining forest areas without prior approval of the Central Government, which must be obtained through the State Government and routed via the concerned State Forest Department. In addition to this, it was highlighted that any mining activity proposed within 500 meters of a Reserve Forest must be preceded by a No Objection Certificate from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer before recommending such activity. It appears to have been pointed out to the District Mines and Geology Officer that there was no prior approval obtained from the Central Government through the State Forest Department as also that there was no NOC obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer before recommending the proposal in favour of the petitioner. fr-' HCJ & RC, J WA_801_2025 It appears that a survey was got conducted by the Mines and Geology Department wherein certain violations were noticed. Based upon the findings of the inspection report as also the illegalities highlighted by the District Forest Officer, the order of suspension was issued restraining the petitioner (appellant herein) from carrying out any quarry operations in accordance with the approved scheme of mining on account of violations of Rule 7-A(vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 [for short, ‘the APMMC Rules’], The aforementioned order came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned single Judge, among others, on the issue of jurisdiction. 3. It was stated that since the mining rights had been granted in favour of the appellant by the Director of Mines and Geology, the Deputy Director had no authority under the APMMC Rules to order mining operations. suspension of the 4. By virtue of the order impugned passed in IA.No.1 of 2025 in the writ petition which is still pending consideration before the learned single Judge, the same was dismissed without determining as to who was the officer authorized to order suspension whether the Deputy Director or the Director of Mines and Geology. 5. It appears that the argument with regard to Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director to issue the order of suspension was not met by the counsel 4 HCJ & RC, J , WA_801_2025 for the respondents on the ground that it had not been raised in the writ petition. The learned single Judge, therefore, appears not to have dealt 6. with the issue at all and proceeded to dismiss the lA for grant of interim relief on the premise that a show cause notice had since been issued to the petitioner as to why action be not taken against the petitioner under the Rules and in particular Rule 7-A(vi) of the APMMC Rules. 7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that even when the issue of jurisdiction had been raised before the learned single Judge for seeking interim protection and the issue was extensively argued, yet, the order impugned did not reflect, in the least, the reason as to why the relief was refused. It was also urged that the issue of show cause notice yet again by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology had no connection with the issue of the order impugned in the writ petition which ordered suspension which resulted in the immediate cessation of the mining operations of the petitioner. On the issue of jurisdiction, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to Rule 12(5)(a)(i), which specifically deals the issue of granting quarry lease for granite useful for cutting and polishing, marble and 31 8. minerals mentioned in SI.Nos. 18 to 48 in Schedule I with the Director of Mines 5 HCJ & RC, J WA 801 2025 and Geology, who is entitled to receive the application forms for such quarry leases in the prescribed format and upon payment of the requisite fee. Reference is also made to Rule 13 of the APMMC Rules, which 9. deals with the right of the Deputy Director to dispose of the applications for grant of quarry leases for minor minerals. However, it is clear on the reading of the said Rule 13 that the said applications are permitted to be entertained by the Deputy Director concerned in regard to quarry leases for minor minerals except sand and granite. Even otherwise, if the authority to grant a lease was vested with 10. the Director of Mines and Geology, by necessary implication, the power to order suspension of quarrying operations would also vest with the same authority unless the Rule otherwise expressly permitted to the contrary. In the present case, the Rules do not at all, in our opinion, permit any authority except the Director to either grant a lease for quarrying granite or to suspend its operations by an authority other than the one which is vested in the Director concerned. In our view, the order of suspension ordered by the Deputy 11. Director of Mines and Geology is clearly without jurisdiction and we hold so. The order, dated 30.06.2025, in regard to IA.No.1 of 2025 is 12. Consequently, the order of suspension, dated accordingly set aside. 20.05.2025 is also set aside. 6 HCJ&RC,J ‘ WA 801 2G25 ■e Although it is stated that a show cause notice has since been 13. issued by the Deputy Director asking the appellant to show cause as to why the lease be not determined, we do not intend to make any observations as regards the power and jurisdiction of the Deputy Director yet again to issue such a show cause notice and it shall be open to the parties to agitate the matter if so advised before an appropriate forum. Nothing said by us hereinabove shall prevent the Director of Mines to pass appropriate orders if required even for suspension of the quarry operations more so considering the fact that the lease in question was, as stated by the Forest authorities, granted without obtaining prior permission of 14. the Central Government which would be in fact a violation of the relevant Rules on the subject. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur 1. State District. 2. The Commissioner Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 3. The District Mines and Geology Officer, Chittoor Town and District. and Director of Mines and Geology, Government of 4. The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor Town and District. 5. The Tahsildar, Karvetinagaram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. The District Forest Officer, Tirupathi Division, Tirupathi Town and District. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor Town and District. 8. The Station House Officer, Karvetinagaram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District 9. One CC to Sri Vardhineedi Sai Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 12. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 13. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 14. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED;15/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA No. 801 OF 2025 g( 1 9 JUL 2025 , Co rrentSectionxV^ ALLOWING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS