WA/2206/2004 of Niraj College of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Vs G. Jivith Reddy, on 31 December 2004

ORAL ORDER:

(per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice)

The appellant was not a party to the Writ Petition, and, sought leave to file this WritAppeal against the orders dated: 26.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judgedisposing of the Writ Petition of the first respondent at the admission stage itself.

Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent on 22.11.2004. It came up before theCourt on 23.11.2004, and, was directed to be posted on 25.11.2004 in Motion List,and, without calling for the reply from the respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition, itwas disposed of by a reasoned order directing the respondents in the Writ Petitionnot to cause interference in the quarrying and mining activities of the writ petitionerin the place referred to without issuing any proceedings.

Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to WritPetition No.6528 of 2000, which was a comprehensive writ petition filed by theappellant about the quarrying operations being carried out by one Sahitya Stoneand Metal Crushers, Muneerabad, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereinit was alleged by the appellant that originally, first respondent herein was the holderof land and was the Managing Partner of the Sahitya Stone and Metal Crushers.There was an interim order passed directing to take steps to prevent Sahitya Stoneand Metal Crushers from continuing with the mining operations by using detonators.Writ Petition was disposed of on 25.7.2001, when it was pointed out by the PollutionControl Board that necessary directions under Section 31(A) of the Air (Preventionand Control of Pollution) Act, 1987 had been issued. Without disclosing these factson record, Writ Petition was filed, as if, the police authorities were not within theirrights to even prevent illegal mining, and, without taking the version of respondents1 and 2 in the Writ Petition, learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the WritPetition.

The very method of the Courts in disposing of the Writ Petition at the admissionstage without even granting adjournment to the respondents to place their versionon record, and, holding the action of respondents to be without jurisdiction must bedeprecated. The order disposing of Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. We allow the Writ Appeal, set aside the impugned order disposing of the Writ Petition, and,direct that the appellant herein be impleaded as respondent in the Writ Petition. TheWrit Petition be decided afresh in accordance with law. No costs.

________________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J.

31.12.2004.

_________________________

M.NARAYANA REDDY, J.

VR.

NOTE:

Communicate operative portion by

wire at party’s cost.

(BO)

VR.

To

Conclusion

1. The Station House Officer, Medchal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(OUT).

4. Two CD copies.