APHC010507472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1055 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-58 [3552] G. V. Narayana Reddy and others ...Appellants Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellants : Sri K. V. Raghu Veer Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Pollution Control Board. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th December 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 rendered in Writ Petition No.6644 of 2025. 2. The petitioners had challenged the proceedings dated 11.09.2023 issued by the Divisional Mines and Geology Officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor District whereby the quarry lease was granted in favour of private respondent No.8. 3. The contention of the petitioners before the learned single Judge as also before us is that the grant of a quarry lease is hazardous to the residents 2 of the villages, who have land and houses in close proximity to the area where the quarry operations are to be undertaken. 4. It is also the case of the appellants that there is an elementary school wherein approximately 60 children are studying. The population in the village is stated to be 3,000. 5. When the matter was being considered by the learned single Judge, by virtue of the order dated 19.03.2025, the learned single Judge directed a joint inspection to be conducted. The report was submitted which was considered by the learned single Judge, which reflected that the distance of the village was approximately 522 to 620 meters from the quarry area and the school was at a distance of 522 meters. The agricultural fields of the petitioners were also stated to be approximately 320 meters away from the quarry area. Insofar as the water canal is concerned, the same was as per the report at a distance of 75 meters from the quarry area. 6. It appears that when mining operations are conducted without undertaking any blasting, a minimum distance of 100 meters has to be maintained from residential areas/public buildings and inhabited sites whereas in cases where blasting is involved, a minimum distance of 200 meters is to be maintained. 3 7. The stand of the official respondents is that due procedure had been followed for the purposes of grant of permission in favour of respondent No.8 herein. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge warrants no interference more so, in the light of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee, which suggests no violation of any of the norms. 9. Be that as it may, the appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, direct the official respondents to ensure that the quarrying operations are conducted strictly in accordance with the norms and timely inspections be conducted in regard to the quarrying site. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 4 18 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 1055 of 2025 Dt:08.12.2025 AMD