VENKATA GIRISH Vs. STATE OF AP
LAWS(APH)-2019-9-30
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 05,2019

Venkata Girish Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Ap Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - (1.)Petitioner - Ch.Venkata Girish, filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.5 in insisting on EC certificate without considering that the petitioner is deemed to have been granted E.C. as per clause 8 (iii) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent No.5 to issue CTO/CFO as per Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
(2.)This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the State of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.2 is the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, respondent No.3 is the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, respondent No.4 is the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), whereas respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the authorities under the Pollution Control Board, who are dealing with environmental impact assessment and granting permissions for mining activities.
(3.)The petitioner obtained quarry lease for extraction of colour granite in an extent of Hc.5.310 Cts in Sy.No.305 and 307 of Thotakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District w.e.f. 27.06.2012 to 26.03.2032 vide proceedings dated 27.06.2012. Since the day of grant, the petitioner has been conducting quarrying operations without any complaints, whatsoever from any corner strictly adhering to the terms and conditions of the lease deed and Rules in vogue. The petitioner is involved in the business of granite extraction and the mining lease was for colour granite extraction, which is explicit from the lease itself. Granite being a minor mineral is dealt by the State and leases are governed by A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, "the A.P.M.M.C. Rules"). The A.P.M.M.C. Rules are framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the MMDR Act") and the Rules are a complete code by itself, deal with all aspects of mining of minor minerals. The subject lease is exclusively governed by Rule 9 thereof. Though the petitioner raised several contentions with regard to lease and license, they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, those allegations are unnecessary for us to decide the real controversy between the parties.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.