Vuyyuri Veerraju, vs Nallamilli Ramakrishna Reddy,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2769 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.305 of 2021
                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

Vuyyuri Veerraju S/o. Sri Ramachandra Rao,
Aged about 44 years, R/o. Door No.5-166,
Kuthukuluru-533264, Anaparthy Mandal,
East Godavari District and another.
                                                       .. Appellants
       Versus

Nallamilli Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. Sri Moola Reddy,
Hindu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Ramavaram-533264, Anaparthy Mandal,
East Godavari District, and others.
                                                       .. Respondents.

Counsel for the appellants               : Mr. N. Vijay

Counsel for respondent No.1              : Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao

Counsel for respondent Nos.2,3,6&7       : GP for Mines & Geology

Counsel for respondent No.4              : GP for Home

Counsel for respondent No.5              : Mr. S.M. Subhani, for
                                           Ms. Gayathri Reddy

Counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11       : GP for Revenue

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

                               Dt: 02.08.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. N. Vijay, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard

Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ

petitioner, Mr. K. Naveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Mines &

Geology appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7, Mr. V. Maheswara HCJ & NJS,J

Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent

No.4, Mr. S.M. Subhani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5,

and Mr. P. Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondent Nos.8 to 11.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 03.05.2021

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8384 of 2021.

3. By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition filed by respondent

No.1/writ petitioner was disposed of with the following directions:

"1) Respondent No.3 is directed to submit a copy of

Enquiry Report along with enclosures (which is filed before

this Court) to respondent No.1 within three (3) days from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               2)     Respondent No.1 shall examine the Enquiry

      Report        submitted   by   respondent     No.3       and   initiate

proceedings under the provisions of Mines and Minerals

(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and A.P. Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 to protect the public

property, to save the public exchequer and to protect the

environment.

3) Respondent No.1 shall initiate appropriate

proceedings against the officers who are responsible for not

taking timely action on the representations dated 6.7.2020,

18.12.2020, 20.2.2021 and 9.3.2021 submitted by the

petitioner to protect the public property and thereby,

causing loss to the public exchequer and environment in

accordance with law.

HCJ & NJS,J

4) Respondent No.1 shall complete the process to

take action against wrong doers in the light of the Enquiry

Report submitted by respondent No.3 within a period of

three (3) months from the date of the receipt of a copy of

the order by following the principles of natural justice."

4. It is alleged in the writ petition that there was inaction on the part

of the authorities in stopping the illegal quarrying of gravel being carried

out by the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 beyond their leased

areas, viz., an extent of Ac.6.14 cents in Sy.Nos.209/7, 209/8 and 209/9

and an extent of Ac.3.54 cents in Sy.No.209/17, 209/18 and 209/21,

respectively, in G.Donthamuru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East

Godavari District.

5. Mr. N. Vijay, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the

learned single Judge had passed an interim order dated 16.04.2021 in

I.A.No.2 of 2021 in the writ petition, directing respondent No.3 therein,

i.e., the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement), General

Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, to conduct an

enquiry with regard to the alleged illegal quarrying operations being

carried out by the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 beyond their

leased areas and to submit a report. Pursuant to the said interim order,

an enquiry report was submitted before the Court and the said report has

been made the basis for the order under challenge. In the said enquiry,

certain irregularities were said to have been established against the

appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12. While pointing out that the enquiry

was conducted behind the back of the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and HCJ & NJS,J

12, learned counsel has contended that the appellants, being the lease-

holders, ought to have been necessarily associated with the enquiry

proceedings and failure to do so has resulted in violation of principles of

natural justice. He submits that the ex parte enquiry has occasioned

failure of justice and accordingly, any conclusion based on such enquiry

report cannot be sustained in law.

6. Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ

petitioner, acknowledges that the enquiry was not conducted in the

presence of the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 and, therefore, he

submits that he would have no objection if the order of the learned single

Judge is set aside and the authorities are directed to conduct a survey

and enquiry in respect of the allegation regarding illegal quarrying of

gravel being carried out by the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12, in

the presence of the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 as well as

respondent No.1/writ petitioner. He has also submitted that a joint

enquiry and survey may be conducted by the Assistant Director of Survey

and Settlements, Rajamahendravaram, and the Deputy Director of Mines

and Geology, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

7. Mr. K. Naveen Kumar, Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, Mr. S.M. Subhani,

and Mr. P. Subash have endorsed the submissions of Mr. A. Prabhakar

Rao.

8. Though, initially, Mr. N. Vijay had expressed certain reservation

with regard to permitting respondent No.1/writ petitioner to be present

during the survey and enquiry, subsequently, he has also agreed to the

course of action proposed by Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao.

HCJ & NJS,J

9. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the

appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 and in view of the agreement

between the parties, we pass this consent order setting aside the

judgment of the learned single Judge and directing that a joint survey

and enquiry shall be conducted by the Assistant Director of Survey and

Settlements, Rajamahendravaram, and the Deputy Director of Mines and

Geology, Kakinada, East Godavari District, in connection with the

allegation of illegal quarrying of gravel in the survey numbers as indicated

supra, after giving notice to the appellants/respondent Nos.11 and 12 as

well as respondent No.1/writ petitioner, and a report be submitted to

respondent No.3 - Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam,

Krishna District, within a period of two months. Based on the report to be

submitted, the respondent No.3 will take such further action as may be

called for.

10. With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                              IBL