APHC010116072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 5838 of Between: 1. M/s.Sri Gopal Rocks Devineni Yugadev, S/o.Late Gopala Krishna, aged 31 years, R/o.D.No.54-13-8, plot No.100, Srinivasanagar bank colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department), Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Forest Officer, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Deputy Range Officer, Forest Department, Kanchikacherla Section of Vijayawada Range, N.T.R.Division, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Department of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Mines & Geology Officer. 5. The Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 5838 of 2025 M/s.Sri Gopal Rocks & Minerals, represented by its Proprietor Sri Devineni Yugadev, S/o.Late Gopala Krishna, aged 31 years, 8, plot No.100, Srinivasanagar bank colony, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. ...P and he State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department), Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Forest Officer, N.T.R.Division (N.T.R.District), Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. Deputy Range Officer, Forest Department, Kanchikacherla Section of Vijayawada Range, N.T.R.Division, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra epartment of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Mines & Geology Officer. he Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. ...R IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five & Minerals, represented by its Proprietor Sri Devineni Yugadev, S/o.Late Gopala Krishna, aged 31 years, 8, plot No.100, Srinivasanagar bank colony, Vijayawada, ...Petitioner he State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department), Secretariat N.T.R.Division (N.T.R.District), Vijayawada, Deputy Range Officer, Forest Department, Kanchikacherla Section of Vijayawada Range, N.T.R.Division, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra epartment of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra he Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents 2 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 Counsel for the petitioner: 1. V.Sai Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1.Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, Assistant Government Pleader for Forests 2.Government Pleader for Mines and Geology 3 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceeding in Rc.No.622/2021/TO(i), dated 17.02.2025 in withdrawing the N.O.C. granted in favour of the petitioner in Rc.No.622/2021/TO, dated 19.01.2021 after filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.3887 of 2025 without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to principles of natural justice as well as oppose to Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India consequentially suspend the operation of the proceeding in Rc.No.622/2021/TO(i), dated 17.02.2025 by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to transport the mineral from Navepothavaram to Kethanakonda as per N.O.C. in Rc.No.622/2021/TO, dated 19.01.2021 and to pass such other order, which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 02. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned proceeding dated 17.02.2025 in withdrawing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (N.O.C.) earlier granted in favour of the petitioner on 19.01.2021, without issuing any prior notice calling for objection by proposing action to cancel the N.O.C. After considering the contention, this Court on 10.03.2025 granted interim order suspending the impugned proceeding for a period of six (06) weeks from the date of the order. Since there was no prior notice issued before passing an impugned order dated 17.02.2025 and subsequent development of passing interim order by this Court, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide Rc.No.622 / 2021 / TO, dated 25.03.2025 through registered post with acknowledgment due to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for withdrawal of N.O.C. dated 19.01.2021 as per the conditions Nos.4 and 5 stipulated therein, giving 15 days time from the date of receipt of the 4 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 notice to give reply. Admittedly, notice was received by the petitioner and so far no reply has been given. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this writ petition is pending there is no authority for the respondent No.2 to issue show cause notice and therefore, no reply has been given. 04. The respondent No.2 filed detailed counter affidavit on 05.08.2025 and detailed additional counter affidavit on 23.12.2025 i.e., yesterday. The main contention of the petitioner is that the subject road which is to be used by the petitioner is in survey Nos.84 and 85 are revenue land and that the forest department has not so far issued any notification that the land in survey Nos.84 and 85 is the forest land, nor has it shown that the said property is the notified forest area, but, the revenue department has confirmed that the said land is revenue land and recently also the Collector on 19.12.2025, issued a letter to that effect which was filed before this Court through memo dated 24.12.2025. He further submitted that under various legal proceedings which were submitted by the respondents along with counter and additional counter would go to show that the decision that the forest department has not notified the disputed area as forest area has become final, yet, the forest department is objecting the petitioner on one point or the other. 05. On the other hand, Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that N.O.C. was directly given to the petitioner instead of giving it to the Tahsildar concerned according to the procedure. According to her, the Mining department has to take permission thereafter from the Tahsildar concerned and nextly N.O.C. shall be given to the petitioner, but, the procedure has not been duly followed. She further submitted that N.O.C. was given for quarrying operations only, that too, in survey No.801 for carrying out mining operations and conditions were imposed at S.Nos.(i),( iv) and (v). 5 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 06. Basing on the contents of the petition, the counter, additional counter, and the documents filed by both the parties, they submitted arguments. 07. However, in view of the basic and primary contention that the impugned proceeding was issued without prior notice, both the parties agreed that the petition can be disposed without going into merits on contentions raised on both the sides. 08. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice given is not legal, whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that the show cause notice may be considered giving liberty to the petitioner to give reply to the show cause notice, by setting aside the impugned order. 09. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 became ‘functus officio’ after passing proceeding dated 17.02.2025 and therefore, show cause notice dated 25.03.2025 is illegal. The said contention is not acceptable as it is a separate proceeding issued and is not tainted by the previous proceeding challenging the writ petition. 10. Since the impugned proceeding was not preceded by a notice which is essential for taking extreme action of cancelling the certificate already issued, it is liable to be set aside. However, since the show cause notice has already been issued, yet, due to the pendency of the writ petition, no reply has been submitted, the show cause notice already issued does not become illegal merely because of the pendency of this writ petition by which the proceeding issued cancelling the N.O.C. without prior notice was challenged. 11. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceeding in Rc.No.622 / 2021 / TO (i), dated 17.02.2025 and the petitioner is given liberty to submit reply to the show cause notice dated 25.03.2025 within four (04) weeks 6 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter the respondent No.2 can pass appropriate order, as per law, by duly following the procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 24.12.2025 Note: CC by 31.12.2025 GRL 7 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025 84 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO:5838 of 2025 Date: 24.12.2025 Note: CC by 31.12.2025 GRL 8 BSB,J W.P.No.5838 of 2025