Raja Rajeshwari Granites vs Smt. B. Mayuri
2021 Latest Caselaw 1907 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                  CONTEMPT CASE No. 680 of 2019

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful violation of the

interim order dated 27.02.2019 in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in W.P. No.

4098 of 2019, which reads as under:

" There shall be interim injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering in the mining operations being carried out by the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings, dated 19.04.2007 issued by respondents Nos. 8 and 9 for a period of eight weeks."

The case of the petitioners is that in spite of the judgment of

this Court in Writ Petition No.11412 of 2007, dated 30.07.2008,

wherein the subject land was held not to be a forest land, the

respondent had issued the notice on 25.05.2019 directing them to

stop mining operations in Survey No. 496 on the ground that

environmental clearance certificate is a must. It is the case of the

petitioners that issuance of such notice is a clear violation of the

order complained of and ignoring the earlier orders passed by this

Court in Writ Petition No. 11412 of 2007.

A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent stating that

the subject land is situated in forest area and the civil societies

have been raising objections with respect to carrying out mining

operations in the middle of Inuparathigutta proposed forest block

and the mining activities are disturbing the texture of the forest. A

news item is published in the newspaper and the locals are also

making representations to stop blasting activities. This issue was

discussed in the District Forest Protection Committee meeting held

by the District Collector, Warangal Urban on 05.12.2019 and

thereafter, instructions were issued to submit notification

proposals for Inuparathigutta forest block and to conduct joint

DGPS survey by forest and revenue departments and the same are

in progress. In the meeting conducted in the chambers of the

Chief Conservator of Forests, Warangal Circle, the said officer had

instructed the District Forest Officer, Warangal to issue notice to

stop mining activities in Survey No. 496/1 of Damera Village,

Elkathurthy Revenue Mandal and further, taking into

consideration the fact that the order dated 27.02.2019 was

restricted only for eight weeks, in order to protect the forest, the

impugned notice was issued. There is no intention of violation of

the orders of this Court, is what is stated in the counter-affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter

of fact, W.P.M.P.No.3 of 2019 was filed on 15.04.2019 itself for

extension of interim orders, however, the same was not listed.

According to him, the order in W.P.No.11412 of 2007 itself

clarified that the subject land is not the forest land. He further

states that on oral instructions alleged to have been issued by the

Chief Conservator of Forests, the respondent is stated to have

issued the notice, but however, no action again could have been

taken on oral instructions. It is also the contention of the learned

counsel that no specific details of meeting date, etcetera were

mentioned.

At the outset, it may be noted that the order dated

27.02.2019 is restricted to eight weeks and admittedly, it is not

extended thereafter, though an Application was made by the

petitioners. The notice was issued beyond the period of

subsistence of interim order and at any rate, as on the date of

issuance of notice, there is no order in favour of the petitioners.

The action taken by the respondent cannot be said to be not in

good faith, inasmuch as in the counter-affidavit, reference was

made to the meeting of the District Collector as well as the meeting

with the Chief Conservator of Forests. Though the learned counsel

for the petitioners asserts that, on oral instructions, no action

should be taken, it cannot be said that in each and every case,

written instructions are to be issued to the subordinate officers, as

it is the internal arrangement in the department. As long as the

action taken is bona fide and without any malice, the same cannot

be termed as "violation of the orders of this Court", as it is well-

settled that violation should be a deliberate act and not otherwise.

In the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any

contempt, accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 01st July 2021

ksld