KUDE RAGHAVA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

6. ANDRU SRINIVAS, S/O KRISHNA RAO, D.NO 3-15, DE.VARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GOWRIPATNAM VILLAGE, GODAVARI DISTRICT. 534316

7. SMT MANYAM VENKATA RAJINI, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, D.NO 79-5-1, PRASANTHI ESTATE, TILAK RAAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 533101

8. M VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O RADHA MOHAN, D.NO 79-5-1, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST PRASANTHI ESTATE, TILAK RAAD, GODAVARI DISTRICT, 533101

9. VEMPATI VEERAJU, S/O RAMA KRISHANA, GANDHIBOMMA VEEDHI, DHARMAVARAM, KOVVURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,534316

10. ANDRU USHA RANI, W/O SRINIVAS, D.NO 3-15, GOWRIPATNAM VILLAGE, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 534316

11. SMT ANDRU ANANTHA PADMA KOTI SATYAVATHI, W/O VILLAGE, A.KRISHNA RAO,D.NO DEVARAPALLI MANDAT, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.534316 3-15, GOWRIPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inction of the respondents No 2 to 5 in not taking any steps on my representation dated on 21-10-2025, against the Un- Official respondents No 6 to 11, to stop the illegal mining in Compartment No 703 and 589 covering 80 hecters of Vanthada village, E-Gokavaram Panchayat, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District and State of Andhra 3 Pradesh. Which is Girijanapuram deep forest and hill area, the Un-Official respondents are voilation of Grama Sabha Resolutions and forest laws digging laterite more than 100 Feets day and night with helf of forest officers, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constition of India. Consequently direct the respondents No 2 to 11 to dispose of the representation dated on 21-10-2025.of the petitioenrs forthwith and report compliance to this Honble Court, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondnets No 2 to 5 to enguiry into the as per the MM (DandR) Act 1957, agnist tie Un-Ofcial respondents NO 6 to 11 to impose heavy cost and stop the illegal mining in Compartment No 703 and 589 of Girijanapuram forest Vanthada village, E-Gokavaram Panchayat, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District.Pending disposal of the above writ petition and Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR FORESTS

2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1693/2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not taking any steps on petitioners’ representation dated 21.10.2025, against the un-Official respondent Nos.6 to 11, to stop the illegal mining in Compartment Nos.703 and 589 covering 80 hecters of Vanthada Village, E-Gokavaram Panchayat, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District, State of Andhra Pradesh, which is Girijanapuram deep forest and hill area, the un-official respondents are voilation of Grama Sabha Resolutions and forest laws digging laterite more than 100 Feets day and night with help of forest officers, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 11 to dispose of the representation dated on 21.10.2025 of the petitioners forthwith and report compliance to this Hon’ble Court and pass such other order.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 21.10.2025 alleging that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 11 have been carrying excavation of laterite mineral at compartment Nos.703 and 589 covering 80 hecters of Vanthada Village, E-Gokavaram Panchayat, Prathipadu 5 Mandal, Kakindana District, which is declared as forest area, contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also procedure as contemplated. Even though the said representation is received by the official respondents, but they neither considered the representation and inspected the premises nor initiated appropriate action against the illegal mining of the unofficial respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest furnished written instructions dated 23.01.2026 issued by respondent No.5, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the mining activities are done by the respondent Nos.6 to 11 as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 24.07.2013. The Forest Department has been issuing Form – I permits for transportation of Laterite Mineral. The allegations made by the petitioner are false. There is no violation of forest laws occurred.”

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology furnished written instructions dated 23.01.2026 issued by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid 8 laterite leases were granted after obtaining all necessary permissions the government, including all environmental clearances. Out of these 8 quarry leases, one lease belonging to Smt Andrew Sujatha was 6 surrendered in 2020 due to the exhaustion of the mineral in the leased area. The remaining 7 quarry leases are currently operational with all necessary permissions/clearances. These quarry lease holders are paying the seigniorage fee, other levies as per the rates prescribed by the government in advance and transporting the mineral from the quarries. As per the records, the (07) quarry lease holders are conducting mining operations within their respective granted quarry leased areas. It is respectfully submitted that all the mines have been filled with topsoil and saplings have been planted. Fencing has been erected around all eight mining leased areas. Furthermore, the (08) lease holders had not conducted mining operations during the night times since the mining shall be limited to a depth of 15 feet, the mined material should not be dumped elsewhere, and that transportation facilities should be provided to the villagers. The leaseholders are carrying out mining operations according to the AMP and the mining is depending on the availability of minerals, as per the AMP. They are also providing transportation facilities to the villagers. The leaseholders are quarrying only within their allotted lease area and transporting the extracted mineral to the MDL area is Arelladhara Village, and not dumping it in any other forest area.”

6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear and categorical that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 11 were 7 granted lease hold rights and they entered lease deed in respect of subject land for excavation of laterite mineral. It is further observed that the unofficial respondents have been carrying out excavation as per the terms of the lease deed and also within the mining plan attached to the lease deed. Therefore, there is no violation in carrying excavation in respect of land.

7. In view of the clear and categorical admissions on the part of the respondents, admittedly the petitioners did not state anything about violation of any terms of the lease deed or the lease deed is granted, contrary to the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the petitioners proceeded on the presumption the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 11 were not granted any lease hold rights by the Forest Department as well as Department of Mines and Geology. Since, the petitioners themselves did not have any solid/substantial information regarding terms of lease, the allegation and representation of the petitioners is contrary to the facts and irresponsible and other purpose best known to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled any relief. However, the petitioners are at liberty, if they still intend to agitate about the alleged illegal mining of the unofficial respondents, the petitioners are at liberty to substantiate their case by pointing out violations either in respect of mining or in respect of terms of lease. 8

8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

29.01.2026 TTPPSS ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 9 72 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1693/2026

29.01.2026 TTPPSS