Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Juvvanaboyina Lakshmana Rao vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.25997 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
03. 25.08.2022 RRR, J
The petitioners, who claim to be
residents of the village and owners of land
which is alleged to be affected by the mining
activity of the 4th respondent have approached
this Court with the complaint that the mining activity of the 4th respondent is illegal as necessary environment clearance has not been obtained.
The learned Government Pleader and Sri T.Vishnu Teja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would contend that environment clearance is not necessary, for excavation of gravel, in as much as the Central Government, by notification dated 28.03.2020, had exempted excavation of gravel for the purpose of construction of road, from the requirement of obtaining environment clearances.
Sri P.V.R.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the said notification only exempts excavation of ordinary earth and the said exemption would not extend to excavation of gravel.
The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology relying on the written instructions received by him, would submit that what is being excavated is ordinary earth. However, since the soil in the area consists of rough stones, the same is being called as gravel and is infact nothing but ordinary earth.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
The question of whether ordinary earth can be equated to gravel for obtaining the benefit of the exemption under the notification is a matter which requires further consideration.
Both Sri T.Vishnu Teja, learned counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology seek time to place the material before this Court to demonstrate that ordinary earth and gravel are one and the same and the benefit of the exemption mentioned above would be available for excavation of gravel also.
Post on 26.08.2022 in the Motion List. In the meanwhile, in view of the fact that there is a dispute as to the nature of the exemption, it would be appropriate to direct the 4th respondent not to take up further excavation till the next date of hearing.
________
RRR, J
ssp
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE