Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aduru Badarinath vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 September, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.6699 of 2022
ORDER:
The 6th respondent had been granted a quarry lease for Mica, Quartz & Feldspar to an extent of 4.937 hectares in Sy.No.529-B4 of Molakalapoondla Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, by way of Notice No.1455/D8/2020, dated 27.09.2021. The grant of this lease is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the area, in which mining lease was granted to the 6th respondent, is less than 50 meters away from a historical temple built by Chalukyas, known as Siddeswara Swamy Temple. It is further stated that apart from this temple there are also Siva Temple, Navagraha Temples Dakshina Murthy temple, Nagalingeswara Temple and Ankamma Temple, in the said temple complex. The petitioner contends that these temples are well known temples which attract lakhs of devotees during Sivaratri and Karthika Masam and mining activity in an area less than 50 meters away from these temples would cause immense harm and damage to the temples and also cause huge inconvenience to the pilgrims, who turn up during Sivaratri and Karthika Masam. On this basis, the petitioner contends that the grant of quarry lease is arbitrary and requires to be set aside.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the Director of Mines and Geology, who is arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. The Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal, who is arrayed as the 5th respondent, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the 2 RRR,J W.P.No.6699 of 2022 District Collector, who is arrayed as the 4th respondent. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.
4. It is the case of the official respondents as well as the 6th respondent that the distance between the temple complex and the area, where mining is to be undertaken, is more than 200 meters and not, less than 50 meters as claimed by the petitioner. The 6th respondent would also submit that the quarry lease of the petitioner would be regulated by the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961, which prescribes a minimum distance of 45 meters from the workings to any railway or public work. Further the directions of the National Green Tribunal, in relation to quarry lease stipulate that a distance of 100 meters should be maintained from the residential public buildings when blasting is not involved, and 200 meters when blasting is involved. The 6th respondent has specifically stated that use of explosives in quarrying the minor minerals, for which lease has been given, is not preferred and even where such explosives are used they would be of very low intensity. The 6th respondent, as well as the official respondents, have also placed all necessary documents to show that the 6th respondent has obtained all the required permissions including environment clearances and consent order, approved mining plan etc., for establishment by the Pollution Control Board.
5. The respondents contend that grant of mining lease to the 6th respondent does not, in any manner, violate any of the requirements of the minimum distance between the quarry area and public buildings etc.
6. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contention of the respondents that there is a 3 RRR,J W.P.No.6699 of 2022 minimum distance of 200 meters between the quarry area and the temple, is incorrect and the exact distance between the boundary of the quarry area and the temple is about 37 meters.
7. This contention is disputed by Sri T. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. Sri T. Sridhar submits that the distance between the mining area and the temple is more than 100 meters and in any event, the mining plan submitted by the petitioner would be approved only after ensuring that the minimum distance of 100 meters is observed. He would further submit that mining activity has been going on in this area since 1970 and various other persons have already been granted quarry leases and are carrying on quarrying activities without any objection till today. He submits that it is not clear as to why the petitioner has chosen to target the 6th respondent alone.
8. The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology supports the case of the 6th respondent.
9. A perusal of all the documents produced by the 6th respondent as well as the official respondents would show that the 6 th respondent has obtained all necessary clearances for carrying on quarrying activity. The only issue which remains is whether the quarrying activity of the 6th respondent is being carried on at a distance of 100 meters from the existing temples. Both sides have filed Google Maps to demonstrate the distance between the quarry area and the temples through these Google Maps. This Court in view of the rival submissions made on the basis of the same Google Maps, does not deem it appropriate to rely on these Google Maps for arriving at any conclusion.
4 RRR,J W.P.No.6699 of 2022
10. The approved mining plan produced by the 6th respondent can be taken as the basis for deciding this issue. The modified mining plan approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, by way of Letter.No.142/MMP/Mica,Quardz,Feldspar/NLR/2022, dated 31.01.2022 clearly shows that a certain part of the quarry area has been declared as no mining area, to ensure that there is a minimum distance between the area in which the 6th respondent is carrying on mining activities. This modified mining plan shows that there would be a minimum buffer of 200 meters between Siddeswara Swamy Temple and the area in which the 6 th respondent was carrying on mining operations.
11. In view of this approved modified mining plan, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 6th respondent not to undertake any mining or quarrying of minor minerals except in accordance with the modified mining plan approved by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore, mentioned above. This would ensure that the 6 th respondent would not be undertaking any mining activity within 200 meters of the temple. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
14th September, 2022 Js.
5 RRR,J W.P.No.6699 of 2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.6699 of 2022 14th September, 2022 Js.