The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.CHANDRASEN REDDy Counsel forthe Respondents: SRt S.RAHUL REDDY, SpL. Gp, REp. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 40484 OF 2017 Between: Thokala Venk.anna, S/o Thokala Narsaiah Occ Agriculture, Ind,an, aged about 19 .Vgqrr Flo Sompaili Viilage, Burgampahad M?ndat BCdrrctii k"t-had;;ni District ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 State.of relangana, Rep. by its principar Secretary Mines and rndustries Department Secretariat, Hyderabad The Diskict collector and chairman District Level sand, committee, Badradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem 3 Telangana SIate Mineral Development Corooration Managing Director Having its oifice at HIftWSSB' Khairtabad, H,yderabad Limited Rep. by its Premises. 4th Floor 4,!

4. Dr. G. Malsur, Vice Chairman and ltrla Mineral Development Corporation Limited Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad naging Director Telangana State Office at HMWSSB Premises, 4th

5. Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem : District.. 6. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District

7. The Project Officer, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District 8. Tahsildar, Burgampahad Mandal Badradri Kothagurl.em District 9. Station House Officer, Burgampahad, Badradri Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.54, lndustries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 21-OB-2015 which was amended by G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustries .and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 09-1 1- 2017 aq-illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast the sand and sell the sand through the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology i.e., 6th Respondent to the general public at the rate of Rs.400l per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patty land. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPM P. NO: 50237 OF 20171 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 Deputy Director of Mines & Geology and Assistant Director of Mines & Geology i.e., Sth and 6th Respondents to grant permits for sale of sand to the general public pursuant to the permission granted by the District Level sand Committee in Proceedings No.4124lSand 12012 dated 21-03-2017 forthwith. l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO:50238 oF 20171 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.54, Industries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, daled 21-08-2015 which is amended by G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustries and Commerce (M nes.l) Department, dated 09-1 1-2017, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5 to 9: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. cP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO: 2834 OF 2018 Between:

1. T. Muthiah, S/o Thokala Ramulu Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 45 years Rl/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mahdal Bhadradri Kothagudem Distiict 2. Kesupaka Akkamma, Wo Kesupaka Sheshaiah Occ Agricutture, lndian, aged a_hout 53 yenrs Ri/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadridri -Kothagudem District

3. Bingi V_enkalaiah, S/o Bingi Sayubu Occ Agriculture lndian, aged about 65 ' Iears Rl/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri-Kothagudem District

4. Kothapalli Gangaraju, S/o Kothapalli Ramaiah Occ Agriculture, lndian, aqed ?loul 42 y€'ars Fyo. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad [Vlandal Bhadr;dri Kothagudem District

5. G-angauriJVuthesh, Sio Gangapurisrinu Occ Agriculture, Indian, aged about ?9 Vgqrs Ri./o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandat Bhadradri Kothagudem District

6. Kommu Muthamma, Wo Kommu Ganapathi Occ Agriculturr;, lndian, aqed a.bout 52 years R/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampa{ad Ma.rbal Bhidridri Kothagudem District

7. Manda-Anjamma, Wo Manda Venkat Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 42 Igars Fl/o. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri kothagudem District 8. Kesupaka Vr:era Swamy, Occ Agriculture, lndian. aged about 65 years Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudenr District ' 9. Nandipati Veeraiah, Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 55 years Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District l0.Thokala Pitchiah, S/o Thokala Muthaiah Occ Agriculture, Indian, aged about 99 ygqrr Rl/o. Sompaili Viilage, Burgampahad MZndat Bhadradri koihagudem District ,,}.-* 1'1 .Thokala Chukkamma, Wo Thokala Gangaiah Occ Agriculture, lndian, aged about 55 years Ryo. Sompalli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudem District

12. Kesupaka Sayubu, S/o Kesupala Pitchaiah Occ Agriculture' .lndian' agg{ aboui 52 ye5rs Ryo. Sompdlli Village, Burgampahad Mandal Bhadradri j Kothagudem District ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 J The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Industries De'partment Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector and Chairman, District Level Sand Committee, Bhadradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem Telangana State Mineral Development Cgtp.gtgltol Limited, Rep.' Manrsins Director Having its oifice at HMWSSB Premises, 4th Khairtabad, Hyderabad by its Floor

4. Dr. G. Malsur, Vice Chairman and Managing Director- State Mineral Develoi:ment Corporation Limited Office at HIVIWSSB Premises. 4th Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad -Telangana

5. The Project Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District 6. The Assistant Director of lt/ines and Geology, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENTS " petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia piaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84, lndustries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 09-1 1-2017 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast the sand and sell the sand through the Assistant Director of l\/ines and Geology i.e., 6th Respondent to the general public at the rate of Rs.400/- per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patta land' IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 operation of G:o.Ms No.84, lndustries and commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 09-1 1-2017, pending disposal of the present writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma/ be pleased to direct the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology i.e., 6th Respondent to grant permits for sale c,f sand to the general public / Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (KTPS) pursuant to the permission granted by the District Level Sand Committee in Proceedings No.4124lSand 12012 dated 21-03-2017 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.EURGA PRASAD Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3,5 & 6: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULL, WRIT PETITION NO: 6828 OF 2018 Between:

1. Batta Sambaiah, S/o. Bangaraiah lndian, Aged about 30 years Rio. . Chikkudugurrta, Ramanujavaram Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District

2. Batla Pullaiah, S/o. Venkanna lndian, Aged about 38 years Rl/o. Bayyaram, Pinapaka [r,4erndal Khammam District

3. M. Laxmaiah, S/o. Pullaiah lndian, Aged about 48 years Rl/o. Chikkudugunta, Nrlanuguru Mandal Khammam District .,.PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Mines and lndustries Department liecretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector and Chairman District Level Sand Comnrittee, Bhadradri Kothagudem District at Kothagudem

3. Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Having its office at HMWSSB Premises, 4th Floor Khairtabad, Hyderabad

4. The Project Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothaguclem District 5. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kothaguclem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENTS Petition undr:r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that 'n the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may pe pleased to issue arr appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in .. i-.lt the nature of writ of [tr'landamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84,lndustries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 09-11-2017 as illegal, null, void and arbilrary and. consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast thoi'and and-iell the sand through the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology i.e., 5th Respondent to the general public at the rate of Rs.400/- per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patta land' IANO: 1 OF 2018 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 operation of G.o.Ms.No.84, lndustries and commerce (Mines.l) Department, dated 09-1 'l-2017, pending disposal of the present writ Petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2018 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 Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Le., 5th Respondent to grant permits for sale of sand to the general public/Kothagudem. Thermal Power Station(KTPS)forthwithpendingdisposalofthepresentWritPetition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY' SPL' GP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 7126 OF 2018 Between: 1 Gurrala saroiini Devi, wo Venkata Narsaiah aged about 78 years Rl/o Palam ' VilllgJvendiprram Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalapally District 2. Solam Chanti Babu, S/o Mallaiah - Aged about 30 - Rl/o V6JriOfruOriu"ram Vittdge Venkatapuram Maidal Jayashankar Bhupalapally District -years. ...PETITIONERS , AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Secretary Mines and lndustries Department Secretariat Hyderabad The District Collector and Chairman, The District Level Sand Committde Jayashankar BhuPalapallY 2

3. Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman and [Vlanaging Director TSMDC Office Khairtabad Hyderabad

4. The Project Officer, Jayashankar Bhupalapally 5. Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Jayashankar Bhupalapally District Bhupalapally ...RESPONDENTS Petition und,er Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that n the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, ine Higfr Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of W'it of [\ilandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84 ndustries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department dated 09-1 1-2017 as illegal null void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast the sand and sell the sand through the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology i e 5th Respondent to the general public at the rate of Rs.400l per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patta land. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 operation of G.O.Ms.No.84 lndustries and com:nerce mines.l Department dated 09-1 1 -2017 pending disposal of the present writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 Assistanl Director of mines and geology i.e., 5th Respcndent to grant permits for sale of sand to the general public Kothagudem Thermal power Station KTPS forthwith pending disposal of the present Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. Gp, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO:28 s73 0F 2019 Between: Mhnaging Partner, Mohammed Zaheeruddin' ' ii,H No-. o--39, A.a. Guardsi Lakadikapoo-|, Hyderabad - 500004, Rep' bv its 1, tril/s super Enterprises, A Regd. Partnership Firm. Having ts^le^gistered 2. Mohammed Zaheeruddin, Sio Mr. Mohammed Nazeeruddin Aged 1b^o-qt^40 - t;;;; il. Business, R/o H. No. 12-2-836, Asif Nagar, Hvderabad -500028 office ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 ThestateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretarylndustriesand Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director of Mines and Geology, Telangana State, Hyderabad The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad Telangana State Mineral

4. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar' 5. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahaboobnagar' 6. The Tahsildar, Midjil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District' ...RESPONDENTS petilion under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the " circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to iSSUe a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, to declare the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms No. 54, dated 211O8t2O15 in consequent to the G O Ms No 30 dated06/05/20l5authorizingTelanganStateMineralDevelopmentCorporation Ltd., Hyderabad for the purpose of de-casting of sand and other minerals over thepattalands,affectingtherightsofthepetitioners,asillegal'improper'unjust' violateofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandconsequentlysetasidethesame. IA NO : 1 OF 2019 Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.o.tr4s No. 54 dt. 2110812015 in consequent to the ,lj.o.Ms No. 30 dated 06/05/2015, authorizing Telangana State Mineral Development of sand and'other minerals over the patta lands affecting the rights of l.he petitioners, pending disposal ol the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES / SRI K.S.SUNEEL Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP, REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I i ^ h THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF.'USTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.11967 OF 2016 40.444 0F 2017 2434 6a2A AND 7t26 ()F 2018 AND 28573 0F 2019 COMMON ORDER (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice): Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, ' on the joint request of the parties, the matters were alalogously heard and decided by this common order. W.P.Nos.4O484 of 2Ol7; 2A34, 6A2A e,7t26 0F 2018:

2. These petitions filed under Article 2'26 of the Constitution assail the constitutiona-lity of G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 09.11.2017, whereby amendment is made to The Telangana State and Sand Mining Rules, 2O15 (for short, Rules of 2015), issued in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015. One such prayer is reproduced for ready reference and it reads thus: ". .. to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries and Commerce (Mines.l) Department dated O9-11-2017 as illegal null void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to de-cast the sand and sell the sand throueh the Assistant Director of Mines and Geoloqy i.e. ,Sfr Respondent to the general puLrlic at the rate of Rs.4OO/- per cubic meter in the local area of 100 kilometers radius from patta land..." (Emphasis Supplied) 7 2 Factual Backqround:

3. The lacts are taken from W.p.No.T126 of !101g. The petitioners p.referred an application in the year 2l) 15 to the Telalgana State Mineral Development Corporation ((.)orporation) seeking permission for de-casting of sand in their pal_ta iands in various vill:rges of erstwhile Khammam District, now Bhoopalapall5, District. The Corporation, after conducting a detailed enquiry and survey, submitted the report to the District l,evel Sand Committee. The hle was pending in the ofhce of the District collector and the petitioners' repeated requests to clear it could not fetch a,y result. The petitioners coulcl not ge,t necessary orders/permis sions to de-cast the sand in their patta larnds. Contention of, the petitioners:

4. Sri K. tturga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that du:ing rainy season because of floocls. hugr.: sand gets accumulated .n certain agricultural fields which are r;ituated on the banks of river/water bodies. After the rain1. seasorr, the sand needs to be removed, so that the agriculturists can undertake their agricultu ra1 activity. He submits that the Govr::rnment of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015, whlgh-is popularly knovyn as 'New Sald Mining policy'2O14'. Rr.Lle 7 of the Rules of 20 15 .,vas inserted permitting the pattaciars to rle_cast the '- 3 sand. Based on this rule, the petitioners submitted their application for de-casting of sand in their patta lands'

5. The petitioners have raised eyebrows on the impugned amendment thror-rgh G.O.Ms'No'54, dated 21'O8'2015' which reads thus: ta land abutting river bed, "The de-casting of sand in anY Pat to make the land suitable for cultivation shal[ be bv M/S Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited'" (EmPhasis SuPPlied) It is the common stand that the procedure prescribed under 6. the Rules and monopoly given to the Corporation is bad in law' Because of this monopoly given to the Corporation' the delay is being caused in de-casting the sand from the land of the agriculturists which adversely affects their agricr'rltural activity' If the permission is given to the patta owners to sell the sand' because of competitive rates, the end user will be benefitted' Contention ofthe Government: 7. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, supported the impugned' GO and urged that the impugned rules are amended in consonance with rule niEklllg power and the object of The Mines and Miaerals (Development t, 4 and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act of 1957,). In orrler to avoid illegal sale of sand and in order to regulate the same, the impugned ru le was brought into force and rvere successfully operating for couple of years. Thus, no interferr:nce mi,Lv be made. 8 No othe:: pornt is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 9 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. FINDINGS: 10. This is trite that the constitutionality of a provision must be chalienged bv taking grounds with accuracv and precession. Pertinently, in these cases, there exists no column of ,grounds, all. It is nece'sary to assa the statutory provision wit.h crarity so that the respcndents may put forth their defence against each of the ground raised with similar clarity. Statutory provisions cannot be interfered with on mere asking. ,-lhus, two requirements rare essential i.e., (i) to set out ground in specific to declare a stat'Jtory provision as urtra uires anrl (ii) to assail the provision in the relief clause. 6 5

11. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in Union of India v' Manjurani RoutraYr held as under: "10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the prayer made in the writ petition' it is lucule4t "t'v etot=tt'd" to at"htt nut" o't ii.iB."po?a..ti t aia .tot No such,relief was even prayed @. ,., tlr" *.it p.titi"".-Re"po.rd..tt 1 in the writ petition #![ th" --. a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the -"..fV """gfrt ora".- of C"AT. Therefore in the given facts' there was no o."""i".t for the High Court to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires' ""t declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires " (Emphasis Supplied) In these cases, the hrst requirement for assailing a statutory t2. provision is totally missing and, therefore' in view of judgment of Manjurani Routray (supra), no interference can be made'

13. No amount of argument could be advanced as to how the amended Rule 7 of the Ruies of 2015 runs contrary to any statutory or enabling provision' A statutory provision can be held ultra uires only on satisfying certain strict parameters' The Apex Court in its recent judgment in Natesh Chandra Agrawal v' '(zoz:)s scc r+a I 6 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India2, considered previous judg,nents ald culled out the principles as ur:.der: "22..

15. Thele is a presumption in favour of consr-itutionaLity or validitl' cf a subordinate legislatron and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recogniz,:d that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under aly of the following grounds: (a) Lack oI legislative competence to make the subor,1inate legrslaticn. (b) VioleLtion of fundamental rights guaranteed undr'r the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Cons*itution :f lndia. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is mr,Lde or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repullnancy to the laws of the land, that is, an1' enact ment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness /unreasonableness {to arr ,txtent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules)"

14. In these cases, the petitioners could not establish that any such ingredient is available on the strength of which .interference can be made on the impugned rule. Hence, these petitions fail and are herebl, dismissed. W.P.Nos. 11967 of 2OL6 and 28573 of 2OL9:,

15. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 21.08.20 11,i, whereby amendments are made to the Rules of 2015, issued in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 08.01.2015. One such praver is reproduced for ready refer,:nce a-I1d it reads thus: '? 2024 SCC Online SC 114 -) 7 "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more parlicularlv one in th;;;;;;. of wrii of Mandamus or anv other writ' to declare ttrl aJtifriJth" .".potta""t" i" i"q'i"sq'Q'Ivl" No' 5a' d"ttd z-tlog/zots ir, .orr".qrJrlt to tht G'o'Ms No' 30 dated ni'toi t zots authorizins Telanqana State Mineral ;#;;;; over. the patta lands' ffiminerals ilr."d"e t}r" .ishts of tl're petitioners, as illega1, improper' l,lor^t"' ot principles -of natural justice and ;;;;;: consequently set aside the same"'" (Emphasis Supplied) Factual Background and contentio n of the petitioners: 16. The facts are taken from W'P'No '28573 of 2Ol9' The petitioners are partners of a firm' Petitioner No'1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of certain lands' description of which are given ,p ,o p*. 3 of the writ affldavit' The principal grievance of these petitioners is also same that after the floods' the sand is being accumulated in the patta lands' The power to de-cast the sand is given to the Corporation' The cumbersome procedure of seeking permission from District Level Sand Committee through Corporation causes serious problem to the petitioners' IT.SriK.S.Suneel,learnedcotrnselforthepetitioners,submits that the impugned GO is detrimental to the interest of the owners of patta lands who had no liberty for the purpose of de-casting of sarrdarrdselltheSameatmarketprice.Thisinfringes fundamental rights of the pattadars. Thus, impugned notificatiqn is arbitrary. 8 iA' Contention of the Government:

18. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, supported the impugned GO and urgr:d that the impugned rules are amended in consonanc-b ri,ith rule making power and the object of the Act of I9S7 . In or:der to avoid illegal sale of sand and with a purpose to regulate the same, the impugned rules were brought into force and are successfully operating for couple of years. In addition, he subm its that the petitioners in whose lands the sand is being accumul.ted will get a share of sal,e consideration, in case of sale of such s,and. Thus, it cannot be said that policy decision of the Gov ernment is unjustifiable. The policy decision was taken anri. rule was amended in order to ensure black-marketing of sand and ensure uniform pricing of sand in the entire State of Telangan.. Thus, no interference may be made.

19. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

20. We have: heard the learned counsel for- the parties and perused the record _, 9 FINDINGS: 21. By and large the grievance put forth in these writ Petitions is saIrLe qua above four cases, although a different provision is called in question. Pertinently, ho grounds' are pleaded separately in these Writ Petitions as well. 22- As noticed above, a rule cannot be interfered with and declared unconstitutional unless speci{ic grounds are pleaded {see Manjurani Routray (supra)}. The test laid down by the Apex Court in Manjurani Routray (supra) is equally applicable to the instant case.- Learned counsel for the petitioners could not make out a case on the strength of which the impugned rule can be declaredasultrauires.Thus,wefindnoreasontointerferewith the impugrred rule and the petitions are liable to be dismissed'

23. Resultantly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPYII SD,.MOHD' SMAIL T REGI STRAR AN AS SIS CTION OFFICER roPUCl ,o,, on" * .,11 2. One CC to SRI K'S' ?, lHlff]:),::,'J;l:voca'ie \k- '.'.-).-:.?.. I J 4 5 6 One CC to StRl K DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SIi.l BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES' Advocate [Ot']Uc] Two ccs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL, Higir court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI It Two CD CoPies 7 BSR LS ( { HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312025 I I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.11967 OF 2016; 40484 OF 2017;2834,6828 AND 7126 0F 2018 AND 28573 0F 2019 E STA,€ 1\{ o 02 APfl 2ul5 z C.'1; P;,1Ci DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS lA- 6tt .5 ?-5