1 . T.Purnachandra chary v. Geology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

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 order or direction more particularly one irr the nature of writ of Mandamus .declarjng action of .the respondents particularly Respondent No. 2 in not taking action on the representation of the petitioner dated 24.1j.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to stop illegal activities being conducted by the respondent No.E in the site situate in Sy.No. 403 of Padmalaya Ambedkarnagar Basti. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to lift the national birds i.e. peacocks and other birds and other trees lying in the site situate in Sy.No. 403 of Padmalaya Ambedkarnagar Basti to some other safest place keeping aside its development activities from the above said land while directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2021, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. CH.MOUNTKA FOR SRt BODA VINODHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI P.SRI RAGHURAM, SHNIOR COUNSEL Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6,7 & 14: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.8: cP FOR ENVIRONMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 & 12: SRI K.GOUTHAM REDDY, AGp FOR FOR SRI ARVIND GEEDIPELLI Counsel for the Respondent No.l0: cP FOR MPCL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.11: SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR MINES & GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.13: - SUO MOTU W.P(PUBLIC INTEREST LtTrGATION) NO: 40F 2024 Between: News article published in the Times of lndia Englis.h daily. newspaper, dated 26-08-2024, with headline 24X7 blasting clears hillock, irks locals in Jubille Hills communit ..PETrroNER AND

1. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal gecJgtqry, Mines and Geology Depa-rtment Dr.B.R.Ambeidkar Secretariat, Hyderabad. Forests, Scienie and technology,'Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. State 5f Telingana, represented by its Principal Secrelary, Environment,. 3. State of Telangana, represented'by its Printal Secretary, Municipal Administration-and Ur6an Development, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad .

4. ;Ielengana State Pollution Control Board, Represented by its.Member Secreiary, A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Rd, Sanath Nagar lndustrial Estate, Hyderabad s. ine Oirector of Mini:s and Geology, Shahpur Wadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 6. The District Collector, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 7. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad

8. Commissioner of Police,, Hyderabad (Respondent No.8 is impleaded as per Co. dt. '16-09-2025 in SUOMOTU wP(PlL)'No'4 of 2024) ...REspoNDENTs Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, . the High Court may be pleased to issue to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to call for records and remarks from the Respondents herein to issue necessary directions to the concerned to stop blasting. of .hillock near Nyay Vihar, the residential complex of the Telangana Judges at Jubilee Hills which is causing disturbance to the livelihood of the nearby residents and to prevent from the ecological imbalance and to pass' Counsel for the Petitioner: LETTER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l,2,3,5 & 6: SRI MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN' ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR TSPCB Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE ST AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.U.MOHIt'DDIN WRIT PETITION No.36517 of UI o.4 of 1 and SUO MOTU C9MMON ORpER: Heard Ms. ch. Mounika, learned counser representing Mr. Boda Vinodhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in w.P.No.365L7 of 2021, Mr. p.sri Raghurarn, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Arvind Geedipelli, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in w.P.No.36slr of 2o2r, Mr. Mohammed lmran Khan, learned Additional Advocate Gener.al appears for respondent Nos. 1,2, 3,5 and 6 in SUo Moru w.p(pIL).No.4 of 2024, Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing counsel for the Telangana State pollution control Boar,c appears for respondent No.1 I in w.P.No.365tr of 2o2l and respondent No.4 in SUo Moru w.p(ptL).No.4 of 2024 and Mr. K.Goutham Reddy, learned Assistant Government pleader lbr Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geologr Depar.tmenr- appears for respondent Nr:s.9 and 1 2 in W .p.No.365 IT of 2021.

2. writ petitio, ',r'as preferred for declaring the actio. of the respondents particularly respondent No.2 in not r_aking action \ 2 on the representation of the petitioners dated 24.11.2021 as \ illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Petitioners also prayed for stoppage of illegal activities conducted by respondent No.5 in the site situated at Survey No.4O3 of Padmalaya Ambedkarnagar Basti, where certain construction activities and blasting were being carried. A public interest litigation was also instituted suo motu by this Court at the instance of a letter addressed by one of the sitting Judges of this Court on a news article published in "Times of lndia" English Daily Newspaper dated 26.08.2024 witlrr headline "24x7 blasting clears hillock' irks locals in Jubilee Hills community".

3. tn the present proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent Nos,l,2,3,5 and 6 in Suo Motu W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, learned Standing Counsel for the I t Telangana State Pollution Control Board and learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent appeared and filed their counter affidavits.

4. On behalf of respondent No.S, specific a_ffidavit was filed stating that after due permission from the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is respondent No.14 in W.P.No.36517 of ---7. ,/. - J 2o2l and respondent No.g in suo Motu w.p(prl).No.4 of 2024, the blasting operations have been carried out. The operations have come to a close on 03.0 6.2025.

5. on flre previous occasion, rearned Additional Advocate General was allowed time to get comprete insb:uctions on the issue referred to in the order dated 2g.og.2o25 as regards the competent authority, who is empowered unde,r the relevant statute to permit use of explosives for carrying ,out blasting at the site in question since there appear to be sonle doubt as to the powers of the commissioner of city porice, Hyderabad to grant such permission where use of explosives ar.e required for blasting within the precincts of the city. 6' A comprehensive affidavit has been f:led by the Commissioner. of police, Hyderabad. The relevant ,:xtract of the affidavit is incorporated hereunder: \ "4' It is further respectfulry submitted that the said Mi s. pater Mining and Infra projects submitted representation dated. L2'O5'202r wherein they stated that, they are having Technical Data, safety procedures a,d precautir>ns in connection with Hard Rock Excavation works wirr mild controlled trlasting operation for the above said projer:t. The said lirm of M/s- .ater Mining ancl infra projects also claimed \l ..i 4 to be doing the control blasting operations, since last 25 yeals in and around Hyderabad for various projects, in Cyberabad, Hyderabad and Rachakonda commissionerate limits, without any incident or near miss at any of its projects. The said firm, in its covering letter also stated that it follows and strictly implements the procedures and safety precautions during the control btasting operations during the execution. i.e-, (il. A pre-blast survey will be conducted at the blasting site by a Mining Engineer and a subsequent blasting design will be arrived based on the site conditions and proximity of site to the nearby structures. (ii). Authorized permit holder Shot Firer will only conduct the blasting operations on a daily basis. (iii). The Permit holder will undertake the blasting through the controlled mild blasting system to avoid inconvenience to the General public and neighbours. (iv). Silent blasting technique with short timer was adopted to minimize the air blast overpressure generated through blasting. The control blasting is carried out in the site under conditions that only have a minimal effect radius of 20 meter and it does not impact nearby buildings. Also to reduce the noise Pollution, l5O Mufflers are used and the effects of each blast are measured with seismograph by its team. (v). Blasting operation will be carried out as per the approved time lines. (vi). To control fly rocks adequate matting will be done by using Rubber mats to control fly rocks, (vii). The Petitioner will install PPV measurement device (Seismographs) for monitoring of the Frequency, Vibration and Noise for each blasting on site. (viii). a No's of CO Extinguishers of 4.5 Kgs each and FIVE DCP extinguishers of 5 Kgs will be kept in the premises. (ix). 4 NO's Fire points consisting of 4 Nos' of Fire Buckets each duly Iilled with dry sand will be provided. (x)' First Aid Medical box with its complete equipment will be kept on site. (xi). No Smoking boards will be displayed at various points and smoking witl be strictly prohibited in the premises. / I .i 5 (xii). Dedicated, Mining Engineers, safety officers, experienced Engineers and supervisors will be deployed on sir.e, to ensure safer blasting operations. I{ence the application of the firm M/s. Patel Mining and Infra projects was supported by the applicernt seeking license, the Respondent herein issued the license for carrying on blasting operations. This is the usual mode and practice for issuing license for any blasting operation under my jurisdiction.

5. llhe said firm of Mis. patel Mining and Inlra projects further stated that, it will follow a standard operating procedure, and follow a detailed checklist for thc pre & post blasting operations on site for every blast. The sairl firm M/s. Patel Mining and Infra Projects herein, therefore in view of the detailed safety measures as enumerated above duiy assured the 8th Respondent that, it would implement all the safety procedures and precautions during the excavatic,n of hard rock by control blasting method at the said locati,rn and till the completion of the works. Hence based on the r:ertificates produced, assurances given as well as verilication o[ the track record of the certificates granting them permissions from the concerned offices to conduct and deal in as well as purchase explosives to carry out blasting operations and the same was also supported by their assurances in writing as well as their earlier track record, the permission to carry out blasting operations was granted. This procedure and authority has been devolved upon the concerned commissioner of police, in this case, the Hyderabad city police commissionor, under section 2l (ll (f) of the Hyderabad city police act, 1348 Fasli (1e3e A.D.).

6. It is respectfully submitted that after commun::cation of the above suoMoru wp (pll), the gth Respondent (;ancl even before being impleaded, through the station House: officer, 6 Filmnagar Police Station) got conducted enquiry through properchannelanditisrevealedthatthesaidblasting operation by said firm was being commenced and completed by following due process and between the prescribed timings i.e., 1O:0O AM., to 04:00 PM' Moreover' the Str' Respondent is regularly monitoring the commencement of work and that the same is going through the prescribed procedure' It is further respectfully submitted that the 8th 7. Respondent herein also obtained reports from the inspecting officers. As per the report it revealed that the land premises bearingNo.TS-l,Biock-F,WardNo'9Co-relatedtoSyNo' 4O3/P situated in Film Nagar, Shaikpet Village & Mandal' Hyderabad District with an extent of Ac' 1O-OO Guntas of open land, admeasuring of 4B,4OO square yards which was jointly owned by M/s. DSR-SR Prime Spaces' LLP" 2) Hindu ProjectsandtheyproposedtobuildMultistoriedComplexin the said land. Furthermore, the above said M/s' DSR-SR Prime Spaces LLP frrm has Part of contract to M/s' Patel MiningandlnfraProjectsfordrilling,controlledblastingand excavation work in the above said land for building development and the same was made agreement between themforHardRockExcavationWorkswithmildcontrolled blasting Operations at site situated at TS-1' Block-F' Ward 9' Old Sy No. 403/p. Film Nagar, Shaikpet (V&M)' Hyderabad' The said proposed controlled blasting at TS- 1' Block-F' Ward- 9, Old Sy.No.4O3/p. FiIm Nagar, Shaikpet (V&M)' Hyderabad is to the East side of Rama Naidu Studios' Phoenix under construction building is on its west side' c)ne open land belongs to Anand Cine services is in the North Side' One BharaniLayoutislocatedintheSouthsideoftheproposed blasting site, which is about 600 meters distance from the blasting site and one pond is in-between the site and Bharani Layout. There is one Padmalaya Ambedkar Nagar residential / /;I 7 a.rea is about 700 meters from the site towards M/est side and some Government vacant land is in between tlee site and Ambedkar Nagar colony. The control blasting irr the site is carrierl out under the technical supervisors of the competent persons working with M's. Patel Mining and Infra Projects and the same has a minimal effect radius of 20 meter and it does not impact nearby building. Further to mit.igate noise pollution 150 Mufflers are used. No complaint.s regarding noise pollution have been received so far. Later, upon the request of the applicant, extension was granted every (3) months from time to time based on the enquiry reports of the concerned Inspecting Officers. The [ast extension permission granted was valid up to 30.06.2025. 'l'he Comrnissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate, irL exercise of the powers conferred Under Section 21, (1) (1) (5) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, Extension of license was also grantecl to the said lirm M/s. Patel Mining and Inlia Projects, and it has also been reported that the said blasling activity has been completecl. The permission granted by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad is based on the following report of various Departrnents.

1. License Form LE-3 (License to possess for use, e..iplosives of class I,2,3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 in a Magazine), issued lty .Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Secunderabad. \ \

2. License Form LE-7 (License to transport explosive in a road van), issued by Joint Chief Controller ol llxplosives, Secunderabad.

3. License Form LE-10 (Certificate of Competency to carryout blasting of explosives in area not coming under the Mines Act, 8 lg52l, issued by Joint chief controller of Explosives, Secunderabad.

4. Work order between builder i.e., M/s DSR-SR Prime spaces LLP -contractor M/s BSS Earth Movers.

5. Contractor M/s BSS Earth Movers awarding the work order to M/s Patel Mining infra Project for control blasting'

6. Copy of site plan

7. GHMC issued Permission to M/s DSR-SR Prime spaces LLP for residential building construction.

8. Enquiry reports from DCP, West Zone I ACP, Jubilee Hills / SHO, Jubilee Hills PS. The permission is being issued as per the statutorily laid out procedure by the Commissioner of Police'

8. It is respectfully submitted that the said Iirm of M/s. Patel Mining and Infra Projects submitted declaration dated. 0g.o7.2o25 to the 8rh Respondent intimating about the completion of Hard Rock Excavation work at Old Sy' No' 4O3/p, Film Nagar', Shiakpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad'

9. It is respectfully submitted that the controlled blasting permission was granted upto 30.06.2025 and the blasting work was completed. Since then, no blasting permission was granted in the limits of Hyderabad city."

7. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that under section 21(1)(f)(v) of the Hyderabad city Police Act, 1348-F, the Commissioner of Police is empowered to issue licence for blasting in an area falling within the jurisdiction of the I I 9 Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F. The Commissioner of Police, on application made with supporting documents, also receives inputs from the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization as also the local Deputy Commiss.:oner of Police and on being satisfied with compliance of the statutory requirements only, issues permission to carry out blasting in the area within the city precincts. The affidavit enumerates the number of statutory licences including those from the Department of Explosives, which were produced by the private respondent, on consideration of which the permission was granted to cetrry out the blasting work. He submits that the controlled blzrsting permission was granted up to 30.06.2025 and it is completed. Since then, no blasting permission has been granted in the limits of Hyderabad city.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that therefore, the purpose of the instant writ petition and the public interest litigat.ion has been served, it may be closed. Learned Senior Counsel representing the unofficial respon<lent submits that the entire operation of blasting for carrying out the construction rvork has been carried out, in accc,rdance with law, and after: obtaining the statutory permissions from the l0 Department of Explosives and the Commissioner of City Police in terms of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F. He has taken this Court to the relevant provisions, Rules and the Schedule of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and provisions under Section 21(1)(f)(v) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F and submitted:

8.1. The power of the Commissioner to issue licence under the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F takes into account the necessary permissions or licences required under the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 also.

8.2. Provision pertaining to '5. Arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives' has been included under Entry lltem 5 of List I- Union List, of seventh Schedule (Article 246) under the Constitution of India.

8.3. While so, provisions pertaining to '1. Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil powerl. 2. Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I' have been / I { u included at Entry/Items 1 and 2 of List II-State List of Seventh Schedule (Article 246l'under the Constitution of India.

8.4. As such, the doctrine of incorporation is not applicable as there is no interplay between the Explosives Act-, 1884 and the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F.

8.5. Under the Explosives Act, 1884, provisions that pertain to licensing and permissions are Sections 6, 6A and 68 Furthermore, Schedule IV, Part 1 of the Explosir,'es Rules, 2008 provides the complete list of Licences and licensing authoritres such as Chief Controller or Controller of Explosir,'es and District Magistrate for the purposes of licence for manufacturing of various categories of explosives.

8.6. On the other hand, Section 21(1)(f)(v) of the Hyderabad Cit)' Police Act, 1348-F pertains to the Power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order and reads as follows "21. (1) The Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad ma;r, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this Act in respect of the following. Such rules shall, in case of clauses (b) and (c), be subject to the control of thc Government and with regard to the remaining 12 clauses,sanctionofttreGovernmentshallbeobtainedpriortothe enforcement of rules"" (f) licensing for or regulating the following matters and where it is likely to cause inconvenience' delay' danger or damage to the residents or the persons passing in trre vicinity, prohibiting: (i)thekeepingofaplaceofpublicalnusementorplaceofpublic entertainmenU (ii) the playrng of music in public streets or public places' (iia)theusingofaloud-speakerinanypublicplaceorplacesofpublic entertainment; (iii)theilluminationinpublicstreetorpublicplace,oronanybuilding adjacent to the public street' by persons other than Government or Municipal officers authorised in this behalf; (iv) the carrying through public streets or places of gun-powder or other exPlosive substances; (v) blasting." I f

8.7. The Hyderabad City Police Act' 1348-F also lists the Directions arld Notifications issued und'er Hyderabad city Police Rules. under the said Directions and Notifications' detailed proced'uretobefollowedforobtainingalicence,thecautionsto beexercised',thecond'itionstobefulfilledareenumerated underx.NotificationissuedbytheHeadofficeoftheCity police, Hyderabad. sub: Rules regarding permissions for ,/ l3 blasting the preventive measures and methocl of blasting,dated 2"d Afaneidar of the month of Mahe, 1345 Fasli,.

8.8. As such, the powers of the commissioner of police a,re governed by a statute and the role is primaril'r for maintenance of public safety and public order. Therefore, the nature of power is completely unrelated to and distinct from those under the Explosives Act, 1884. There is no overlap betvzeen the t,*,o Acts and is evidence from the nature of duties and powers attributed to the licensing authority under the two Acts i.r:., the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Hyderabad City police Act, 1:34g_F. I I

8.9. The discretion of the commissioner is amply supported by rules and notifications and as such are not unbridled powers \ and are glrided by the statutory provisions, the rules and t notifications and principles of administrative law.

9. on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the view that the impugned exe::cise of blasting was carriecl out after statutory compliance on behalf of the unofficial respondent and upon permission granted by the commissioner of police, Hyderabad, in accordance with law. - ffi.:F; t4

10. Therefore, the writ petition and suo Motu W.P(PIL) are accordingly closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To I

1. On9 CC to SRI BODA VINODHAR, Adv_ocate 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court r of Telangana, at

3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

4. Ttfuo CCs to GP FOR ENVIRONMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two-CCs to GPFORMINES & GEOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two cCs to GP FOR MPCL ADIUN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State . of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CC. to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One cC to SRI ARVIND GEEDIPELLI, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRt ZEESFfAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR TSPCB [OPUCI 10.Two CD Copies PSK. LS I HIGH COURT DATED 23t09t2025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.3651T of 2021 AND SUO MOTU W.p(ptL).No.4 OF 2024 '. .-.1'":*.:--, i:"ii:: .: , \ '') .,...\ -". ,1..

1.,. . \..\ t j,,o5ri[m '; '..r. * \.. 1"..- -.*...t--o I.:., r-..' -.._-,. _ r_-:t-, ...: r: . - _,.:.::' CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION W.P(P|L).No.4 OF 2OZ4 WITHOUT C D SUO MOTU IraW ,L 'i I