The High Court · 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 direct the 2"d Respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated oB.o1 .2025 seeking grant of extension of time for de-casting of sand in the lands of the petitioner by directing the 3rd Respondent to issue necessary permissions to the 4th Respondent during the pendency of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 3 : GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B.RAMULU The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER IION'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.l722 of 2()25 ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geolory appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, learned Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, Sri B.Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a Cooperative-society formed by the members of tribal communities; that it was granted permission by the 4tt respondent to extract sand from the specihed sand bearing area situated at Rampur Village, W azeedu Mandal, Mulugu District, for a period of one year w.e.f ., 27 .06.2023 Lo 26.06.2024 in a quantity of 4,98,1a2 cubic meters equivalent to Z,gZ,Ogl.2 metric tonnes; and that the petitioner had approached the 4tn respondent-authority as well as the 1sr respondent seeking extension of the validity of the period of the contract for extraction of sand as the petitioner, due to the reasons beyond its control, could not undertake extraction of permitted quantity of sand under the permission granted by the 1"t respondent in favour of the 4tl respondent. / -?- 2

3. Peritioner lurther contends that in spite oI it approaching the 4fi responde.nt as well as the lsr respondent seeking r:xtension of the validity of the permit granted in favour of the 4 tj, respondent by submitting a representation, dt.Og.O1.2O2S, thesame is not being considered granting extension of time for excavalion ol sand, which action on the part of the lst and 46 respondents, it is contended as being illegai and arbitrary, and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, Standing Counsel learned Government pleader ancl learned appearing on behalf of the respondents u.ould submit that permission for excavation of sand was granted ln favour of the 4h respondent urde proceedings, dt.nl1.O6.2023; and that the 46 respondent, on being granted with in principle approval for issuance of permit, had rn turn agreement q,ith the peti tioner_Societ5r for sand from the specified sand bearing dt.22.06.2023. entered into an excavation / extrac tion of area under agr.eement,

5. Learned Government pleader further submits that for_ all the purposes under Telangana State Sand Mining Rules, 2015 (for short 'the Rules), it is only the 4rh respondent, u,hich has been recognized as permit holder for extracdon of sand and lhe 4d1 respondent having in turn permitted the petitioner-society extract sand on its behalf under an agreement, dt.22.o6.2o23, if any extelFion is to be sought, it is only the 4m respondent, which 3 can make application seeking extension of time in terms of the provisions of Rules, and not the petitioner.

6. karned Government pleader would further submit that inasmuch as the 4e respondent did not choose to make any application seeking extension of the validity of the permission beyond its expiration i.e., on 26.06.2024, the petitioner, who is only an agreement holder under the 4e respondent, cannot maintain the present Writ petition.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4tr, respondent would submit that in_principle permission for excavation and supply of sand for a quantity of 4,9g, 1g2 cubic meters from the specilied sand bearing area situated at Rampur Village, Wazeedu Mandal, Mulugu District, was granted by the Government in its favour for a period of one year i.e., from 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2024; thar since, rhe petitioner is a cooperative Society formed by the members of tribar communities, the 4tt respondent had entered into an agreement permitting the petitioner to extract sand for and on behalf of the 4ff respondent; and that the 4h respondent had agreed to pay the charges under the agreement for the quantity of sand extracted and loaded into the lorries.

8. l-earned Standing Counsel further submits that after the period of one year, as permitted by the Isr respondent utde 4 permlssion proceedings dt.27.06.2023, had expired on 26.06.2024, the 4ff respondent did not choose to make any application seeking extension of the validity of the aforesaid permission; and that the petitioner being an agent of the 4ft respondent can neither call in question the action ol the 4e respondent tn not making an . application seeking extension nor the action of the 1"r respondent in not grantrng such extension. 9 ' I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 10. The t{on,ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Samatha us State OJ And.hra prad.esh And OTst y.16 that mining operations in scheduled areas can only be undertaken through an appropriate scheme, without disturbing ecology and forest, by the tribals themselves, either individually or through Cooperative Societies composed solely of the tribes with the financial assisrancc of the State or through its instrumenklities. 1 1. Though the petitioner claims to be a Cooperatir.e_society formed by the members of the tribal communify, it is tcr [s 5ssn that the said Socieg did not approach the Statc Government by making an application seeking for grant of permission for excavation of sand and on the other hand it is thLe 4e respondent, which had obtained permission and in turn, under an agreement. '(1997)8 scc 191 permitted the petitioner herein to excavate the sand and load the same in the lorries for its transportation. i 5

12. Thus, the petitioner is to be considered only an agent/service provider engaged by the 4tL respondent to undertake excavation of sand for and on behalfofthe 4ft respondent. 13. Since, the 4e respondent, being the in_principle permission holder, itself did nor seek for extension of validity of the permission granted in its favour for excavation of sand, the petitioner, who is agent/service provider of the 4ft respondent, cannot step into the shoes of the 4fi respondent to seek for extension of validity of permlsston

14. Thus, the present Writ petition as filed by the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has no loc,s stand.i to maintain the present Writ petition and it fails. 15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending these writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I sEciloN 3.r,"=* iiFiJ-fiiil;is:?ig_;llltxi:xGeorogvDepartment'secretariat,stateor y r"dl fll:H&, r"ii};r'"': not io ttecto r' Dist rict Leve I s a nd co m m itte e, r ne Assistant Directoiof [\ri I erangana. .+l?Eft #*i,H5il*.i*il*f .:#;,TymsaBEl;,s-r"is:,0""* nes and Geology, Mulugu, Mulugu District, To

4. l*d<aJAE, r / SA Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR MTNES AND GEOLOGY, High Court for the State of 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at 7. One CC to SRI P.SUBASH, Advocate tOpUCl B. One CC to SRt B.RAMULU, Advocate iOeUCy 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] I *{ I t HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 ORDER WP.No.1722 ot 2025 a= 1l-,E SI 'r€ ? ) J D il} fll 2lZ5 I n.-(.F.rc ,, a i, t2 ,/ DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. l^{ 'b