Brick Industries v. The State of Andhra

Judgment

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.

#5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District. The Tahsildar, Ichhapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District. The Masakhapuram Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Masakhapuram Village and Grampanchayat Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District.

#6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tekkali, Srikakulam District Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may ^ ...RESPONDENTS- be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction. more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice in Rc. No.379/2021 B dated 16-01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as 16- (^^2024), issued by the Tahsildar, Ichapuram Mandal, the respondent 4*^ respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 I9(l)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 to suspend the impugned Notice in Rc.No.379/2021 B dated 16- 01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as 16-01-2024), issued by the Tahsildar, Ichapuram Mandal, the respondent 4 respondent herein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, KOTA ^ SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT . WRIT PETITION NO: 1972 OF 2n?/> Between: Ravi Kumar Brick Industry, Rep. by its Proprietor Pavuluri S/o. Late Ramanayya, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business Mandal, Srikakulam District. Lakshmi Kumar, R/o. Birlangi Village, AND ...PETITIONER

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 3

#2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.

#3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District,

#4. The Tahsildar, IchhapuramMandal Srikakulam District.

#5. The Birlangi Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Birlangi Village and Grampanchayat, IchapuramMandal, Srikakulam District.

#6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tekkali, Srikakulam District Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ...RESPONDENTS-- the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may appropriate Writ, be pleased Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice in Rc.No.379/2021 B dated 16-01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as 16- 01-2024), issued by the Tahsildar, IchapuramMandal, the respondent 4th respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the impugned Notice in Rc.No.379/2021 16-01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as 16-01-2024), issued by the Tahsildar, Ichapuram Mandal, the respondent 4'*^ respondent herein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. B dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT WRIT PETITION NO: 1976 OF 2025 Between: Konark Brick Industry, Rep. by its Proprietor Narendra Panigrahi, S/o. Late Satyavadi Panigrahi, Aged 55 years, Occ Business, R/o. Bunglow road, Ichapuram Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. AND ...PETITIONER

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

#2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam.

#3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District.

#4. The Tahsildar, Ichhapuram Mandal Srikakulam District. 5. The Birlangi Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Birlangi Village and Grampanchayat, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District.

#6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tekkali, Srikakulam District Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ...RESPONDENTS _ Order or issue an appropriate Writ, the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned B dated 16-01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as Notice in Rc.No.379/2021 16-01-2024), issued by the Tahsildar, Ichapuram Mandal, the respondent 4'^ respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the Direction, same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the impugned Notice in Rc.No.379/2021 B dated 16-01-2025 (wrongly mentioned as 16-01-2024), issued by the Tahsildar, Ichapuram Mandal, the respondent 4th respondent herein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT ' Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY ^ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010035812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3494] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION Nos:1971. 1972 and 1976 of 2025 Writ Petition No:1971 of 2025 Between: New Mahalakshmi Brick Industries ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Common Order: (per NJS,J) The present writ petitions are filed against the individual notices dated

16.01.2024 (sic.) 4*'^' respondent-Tahs ildhar, whereby the petitioners/brick manufacturing industries are directed to close

16.01.2025 issued their operations immediately. The issue involved is identical, hence the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

#2. The case of the petitioners as per the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions, they established brick industries by obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned departments also by Contd... NJS,J & JS,J W.PNos.1971, 1972 & 1976 of 2025 2 obtaining No Objection Certificates from the concerned gram-panchayats. While they are doing their operations in accordance with law, the 4 respondent referring to W.P No.28556 of 2024, filed by one Mr. Doopana Suryanarayana Reddy, issued notice dated 13.12.2024 calling upon the petitioners to submit necessary permissions/licences from the Environmental Department, Minerals Mines Department, Revenue Department, Panchayat Raj Department and Rural Development Department etc., as per G.O.Ms. No.80, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Environment) Department, dated 22.04.2010 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and thereafter, the impugned proceedings/notices were issued to the petitioners.

#3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the proceedings/notices under challenge have been issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the same are liable to the set aside. He submits that pursuant to the notice dated 13.12.2024, all the petitioners submitted their explanations to the 4'*^ respondent on 24.12.2024 along with the relevant documents and instead of passing appropriate orders, the 4 respondent have straight away issued the impugned proceedings.

#4. Drawing the attention of this Court to the references, the learned counsel also points out that the mechanical way, in which the impugned proceedings are issued is discernible, as there is no mention about the notices dated 13.12.2024 much less the explanations submitted by the petitioners on

24.12.2024. He submits that even assuming that the said notices were issued pursuant to some proceedings in W.P No.28556 of 2024, the impugned notices directing the petitioners to close their operations immediatelywithout considering the explanations of the petitioners is wholly unjust, arbitrary and amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned notices. Contd... I' 4 NJS,J&JS,J W.PNos.1971, 1972 & 1976 of 2025 3 The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Mr. K M Krishna Reddy, 5. 4, placed a copy of the brief note representing the respondent Nos.1 to received from the Tahsildhar/4*^ respondent. Though he sought to impress upon this Court that the impugned notices/proceedings are issued, in view of is not in dispute that the the issues raised in W.P No.28556 of 2024, it 4^^ respondent having issued notices and received the explanations submitted by the petitioners thereon had simply passed the impugned proceedings without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners. No are forthcoming in this regard. Be that as it may. reasons

#6. When authority issues a explanation/objections, he is duty bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon, the 4**^ respondent failed to adhere to the procedure and principles of natural justice. in accordance with the present case, receipt law. In notice

#7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned proceedings/notices are set aside. The 4*'^ respondent shall pass appropriate orders, afresh, in accordance with law, by giving due opportunity to the petitioners and taking into account their explanations, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (03) weeks from today.

#8. Accordingly, petitions allowed observations. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. / To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

#1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

#2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam."^ 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District.^ ■SS-

#5. The Tahsildar, Ichhapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District. The Secretary, Masakhapuram Grampanchayat, Masakhapuram Village and Grampanchayat Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District.

#6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tekkali, Srikakulam District.

#7. The Secretary, Birlangi Grampanchayat, Birlangi Village and Grampanchayat, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District.

#9. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gra^ Panchayat[OPUC]

#10. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology, High Court of Andfira Pradesh. [OUT]

#12. Three CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 f COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1971,1972 and 1976 of 2025 * 18 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS