Common Order
1. Heard Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.17100 of 2025 and Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.17548 of 2025, Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for CRDA, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MAUD, Sri G. Venkat Sailendra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6 in for Unofficial Respondent in all the Writ Petitions and Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader for Mines.
2. These Writ Petitions are having common issues for determination by this Court. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts mentioned in W.P.No.17100 of 2025 are referred to in this order.
3. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in approving the tentative layout submitted by the 6th respondent in LP No.35/2025/ 1168/ KNCHKCRLA /DPMS dated 12.06.2025 in an extent of Ac.20.94 cents in S.No./L.P.M. Nos. 1435 [Old R.S. No.359/1 & 359/1/A], 1439 [Old R.S.No.359/1], 3512 [Old R.S.No.360 & Old L.P.M. No. 1441], 3516 [Old R.S.No. 359/1 & Old L.P.M. No. 1438], 3518 [Old R.S.No.364/2 & Old L.P.M. No. 1436], 3520 [Old R.S.No. 361 & Old L.P.M. No. 2457], 3522 [Old R.S. No. 361 & Old L.P.M.2459], 3524 [Old R.S.No. 361 & Old L.P.M. No. 2458], 3627 [Old R.S.No.363 & Old L.P.M.No. 3071] and 3629 [Old R.S.No.363 & Old L.P.M No.3070] of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District which are adjacent to the crushers of the petitioners as well as abbeting to the Mining Zone in Survey Number 801 of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District, as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to G.O.Ms.No.74 (Industries and Commerce) (M1 Dept) dated 16.02.2002 as well as Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and also oppose to the orders of this Honorable Court passed in WP No. 4816 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020 as well as oppose to the verdict of the Honorable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1907- 1908 of 2000 dated 12.12.2003 consequentially suspend the tentative layout approved by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 6th respondent in LP No. 35/2025/1168/KNCHKCRLA/DPMS dated 12.06.2025 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
(emphasis supplied)
FACTS:
4. The Writ Petitioners in these cases are stone crushing units which are situated in various Survey Numbers of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District. The stone crushing units of the Writ Petitioners process (crush) the stone blocks received from Stone Quarries and bring out products of metal and gravel of various sizes. The raw material comes from the stone quarries which are spread over an extent of Ac.1300.00 cents in Survey No.801 of Paritala Village.
5. Facts as stated by the Writ Petitioners are that the 6th Respondent namely M/s. Chaturbhuja Properties has applied for approval of a layout for an extent of Ac.20.94 cents in Survey Nos: 359, 359/1, 359/1-A, 360, 361, 363, 364 and 364/2 etc., which are in the vicinity of the Writ Petitioners crushing units. This Application is submitted for approval to the Capital Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as CRDA). As the crushing units (the Writ Petitioners herein) apprehended that if the layout of Respondent No.6 is approved and when the plots in the layout are sold to third parties, the purchasers of the plots would raise objections with regard to the existence of granite crushing units in the vicinity on the grounds of pollution and eventually compel the Writ Petitioners to shut-down their units. The Writ Petitioners herein have challenged the proposal of the 6th Respondent with regard to the layout, that was under consideration between the Authorities, by filing Writ Petition No.9865 of 2025; that the Writ Petitioners therein have contended that the crushing units situated in Survey No.300 and 801 of Paritala Village is a major source of road metal and gravel for Krishna, West Godavari and Guntur Districts and apart from that, the road metal and building stone material are used for development of Amaravati i.e., the Capital of Andhra Pradesh, which is coming up under the statutory administration of CRDA; that it is also stated that at an earlier point of time, when the Government of Andhra Pradesh undertook a housing scheme called Navaratnalu Scheme (Pedalandariki Illu) in the adjoining area in Survey No.280 of Paritala Village (just adjacent to survey No.801 of Paritala Village), one of the crushing unit owner filed W.P.No.24709 of 2021 seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein as illegal, particularly, against the District Collector, who was intending to allot house sites under the Pedalandariki Illu Scheme (Housing for the Poor people); and that this Hon‟ble Court had passed an ad-interim order of status quo, but thereafter, Pedalandariki Illu Scheme was subsequently withdrawn by the Government.
6. It is also contended by the Writ Petitioners that the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (Respondent No.2) has sanctioned/approved the layout in an extent of Ac.20.94 cents in various survey numbers of Paritala Village in favour of the private developer namely M/s. Chaturbhuja Properties (Respondent No.6) under the impugned proceedings dated 12.06.2025 bearing file No.1168/0102/LP/ KNCHKCRLA/2024/Mortgage (Ex.P1) by completely ignoring the crucial letter addressed by the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology dated 01.04.2025 (Ex.P16) and the letter addressed by the District Mines and Geology Officer, NTR District dated 12.05.2025 bearing letter No.124/Mining Zone-Paritala/2025, dated 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2). Through both these letters (Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.2), the Department of Mines and Geology had vehemently opposed the grant or approval of any kind of housing layout in subject area.
7. It is further contended by the Writ Petitioners that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically fixed the distance of one kilometer between the human inhabitation on one hand and stone quarries and stone crushing units on the other hand; that in consonance with the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued several G.Os namely G.O.Ms.No.74, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 16.02.2002 (Ex.P8), G.O.Ms.No.153, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 01.03.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.59, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 04.10.2016 laying down several guidelines (filed as Material Papers in W.P.No.17548 of 2025). The Writ Petitioners have further contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had been permitting Housing Schemes Indiscriminately; that various departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh have been permitting and allowing construction of residential dwellings, either individually or under layouts, in utter disregard to the distance of 1 KM fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the above mentioned Government orders.
8. When the present Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.17100 and 17548 of 2025) came up for consideration, Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader for Mines appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 namely, the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology and the District Mines and Geology Officer, had taken this Court through the above said two letters addressed by the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology dated 01.04.2025 (Ex.P.16) and by the District Mines and Geology Officer dated 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2), to the Commissioner, CRDA opposing grant of layout approvals and several other cardinal issues.
9. After sifting through the above correspondence addressed by the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology and District Mines and Geology Officer, this Court has noticed that serious issues which are of great public importance were raised by the Department of Mines and Geology. However, at the admission stage when this Court had considered the contents of the correspondence addressed by the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology, the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.9865 of 2025, who are the stone crusher units, have sought to withdraw the said Writ Petition on the ground that the cause of action does not survive in the light of the Order passed by the CRDA on 12.06.2025, thereby granting layout permission to Respondent No.6 and this Order of CRDA is under challenge in W.P.Nos.17100 and 17548 of 2025. This Court, prima facie, having noticed that serious legal issues which are of great public importance were involved and that this Court had passed an Interim Order on 29.04.2025 in the said W.P.No.9865 of 2025 with certain directions against Respondent No.6, did not permit the Writ Petitioners to withdraw W.P.No.9865 of 2025 vide order dated 12.09.2025 and also keeping in mind the blatant violation of the dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case by the CRDA, the larger public interest. The said Interim Order dated 29.04.2025 is usefully extracted hereunder:
“4. This Court is also of the opinion that response from the District Collector of NTR District (Respondent No.4) as well as the Commissioner of CRDA, Vijayawada, NTR District (Respondent No.3) is also necessary in this regard.
5. It is indicated that if the Unofficial Respondent makes any sale of the plots, the Unofficial Respondent shall inform the prospective buyer about the pending litigation and the attendant risk and obtain Written Consent from such buyer before making any such sale.
6. It is further indicated that the sale of plots, if any, shall be made at the risk of the Unofficial Respondent and his prospective clients/buyers.
7. List the matter on 22.07.2025.”
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF UNOFFICIAL RESPONDENT NO.6:
10. In the meantime, the Developer of layout, namely M/s. Chaturbhuja Properties (Respondent No.6) filed Counter-Affidavits in all the Writ Petitions, except W.P.No.17548 of 2025. Para-8 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Unofficial Respondent No.6 on 29.07.2025 along with I.A.No.02 of 2025 seeking to vacate the Interim Order is usefully extracted hereunder:
“8. It is further submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board has issued circular dated 1.3.2019 by issuing certain guidelines with regard to the distance between the boundary of the site and human habitation shall not be less than 500 meters and it is alleged that this respondent's site is within 500 meters of crushing units is absolutely false. More so over, the guidelines that are issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 1.3.2019 or G.O.Ms. No. 74 issued by the Industries and Commerce Department dated 16.2.2002 pertains to the establishment of crushing units or mining operations, but there is no prohibition for formation of house sites by the individuals or converting the land from Agricultural land to Non-agricultural land, no such law prohibits the owners of the agricultural land from seeking conversion from agricultural to non- agricultural and more so over the petitioners have no locus standi to question this respondent's application for grant of layout which is nothing but business revelry between the petitioners and this respondent and as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.”
11. Despite the fact that sufficient time was granted to the Official Respondents on 15.07.2025, 30.07.2025, particularly, the CRDA and the Department of Mines and Geology, they have not evinced any interest in filing their Counter Affidavits. In absence of the Counter-Affidavits from the concerned Authority and the Department, this Court is, rather at a loss in understanding as regards the response of the Commissioner, CRDA to the two Letters written by the Director of Mines and Geology and the District Mines and Geology Officer (Ex.P.16 and Ex.P2).
12. The above mentioned three Writ Petitions, as indicated herein above, involve similar facts and legal contentions, except that the earlier one is filed seeking Mandamus to CRDA not to consider the Housing Layout Application of Respondent No.6 and the later Writ Petitions were filed challenging the grant of approval of the Housing Layout. All the Writ Petitioners are the crushing units, who were opposing the layout developed by the Developer (Respondent No.6). The layout that stood challenged is one and the same and the Writ Petitioners have challenged the grant of approval for the layout of Respondent No.6 vide file No.1168/0102/ LP/KNCHKCRLA/2024/Mortgage, dated 12.06.2025 (Ex.P1).
13. When this Court had sifted through the issues raised by the Department of Mines and Geology vide correspondence dated 01.04.2025 (Ex.P.16) and 12.05.2025 (Ex.P2), this Court had clearly understood that the Commissioner of CRDA (Respondent No.2), while approving the impugned Layout of Respondent No.6, for the reasons best known to him, had completely ignored the correspondence addressed to CRDA by the Authorities under the Department of Mines and Geology, namely Exs.P.16 and P.2. This Court has also understood that very serious and substantial factual and legal issues have been raised by the Department of Mines and Geology in the said correspondence. When this Court has perused the impugned order, it had clearly noticed that the Commissioner, CRDA, while approving the impugned layout, did not care to discuss nor even atleast refer the same in the impugned proceeding about very serious factual and legal objections flagged by the Department of Mines and Geology which go to the very root of the matter.
14. The fairly long letter addressed by the District Mines and Geology Officer (Respondent No.5) dated 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2) had clearly discussed the purport of the Order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Haroon Ansari and another Vs. District Collector, Rangareddy District, A.P. and others: (2004) 1 SCC 491 (Civil Appeal Nos.1907-08 of 2000 dated 12.12.2003). The said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court had clearly settled that the distance of 1 KM is to be mandatorily maintained between human inhabitation on one hand and the Stone Quarries and the crushing units on the other hand. While this order was passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court way back on 12.12.2003, which had attained finality for all purposes under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Respondent No.2 has completely paid a deaf-ear to the letters of Respondent No.5 raising substantial legal issues including the 1 KM limit fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
15. The Respondent No.5 has also raised issues stating that various departments of State of Andhra Pradesh had been allowing layouts in such areas which are classified as Mining Zones and thereafter the innocent plot owners who have either purchased or had been allotted the plots within the designated Mining Zones or within that periphery are later raising issues concerning pollution insofar as crushing units and Stone Quarries are concerned. The Respondent No.5 has also raised issues to the effect that the residents who have built structures deliberately within one kilometer radius are subsequently raising issues with regard to development of cracks in their buildings due to blasting which is done in the quarries and mines. The Respondent No.5 has also flagged majors concerns with absolute clarity that indiscriminate grant of layout permissions by various departments and local bodies, such as the Panchayats, the Municipalities, the Municipal Corporations, the Departments of Revenue and Housing and various Urban Development Authorities including CRDA and the granting of indiscriminate house-site pattas to the homeless poor, is ultimately affecting the mining activity and development besides depriving valuable revenue to the State Exchequer (Please see (1) Municipality, Bhiwandi & Nizampur v. Kailash Sizing Works : (1974) 2 SCC 596 – Para No.15, (2) Tandon Bros. v. State of W.B., : (2001) 5 SCC 664 – Para No.15 and 34, (3) R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 430 – Para No.26, (4) Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab SEB : (2009) 13 SCC 758 – Para No.8 and 18, (5) Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania : (2010) 9 SCC 437 – Para Nos. 25 and 26, (6) Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd., : (2013) 1 SCC 524 – Para Nos. 30 to 32).
ANALYSIS:
16. The facts which are necessary for consideration of these cases are that the Writ Petitioners, who run the stone crushing units in the subject area, have noticed that various illegal layouts were made in the area which fall within the purview of Mining Zone and to this effect the Krishna District Stone Crusher Owners‟ and Quarry Contractors Association had submitted Representations dated 17.01.2025 (Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4) to the Commissioner, C.R.D.A (Respondent No.2) with copies to the District Collector (Respondent No.3), Tahsildar and the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology and the District Mining Officer of NTR District (Respondent No.4 and 5) seeking their interference; that Respondent No.6 herein has submitted an Application to APCRDA (Respondent No.2) for consideration and approval of the Layout Plan with regard to house sites on 26.04.2025 in an extent of Ac.20.0949 in S.No./L.P.M Nos.1435 (Old R.S.No.359/1 & 359/1/A), 1439 (Old R.S.No.359/1), 3512 (Old R.S.No.360 & Old L.P.M No.1441), 3516 (Old R.S.No.359/1 & Old L.P.M No.1438), 3518 (Old R.S.No.364/2 & Old L.P.M No.1436), 3520 (Old R.S.No.361 & Old L.P.M No.2457), 3522 (Old R.S.No.361 & Old L.P.M No.2459), 3524 (Old R.S.No.361 & Old L.P.M No.2458), 3627 (Old R.S.No.363 & Old L.P.M No.3071) and 3629 (Old R.S.No.363 & Old L.P.M No.3070) of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District; that having come to know about the consideration of various layout applications in the subject area, the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (Respondent No.4) had addressed Proceedings bearing Letter No.INC04- 12025(42)/1/2025-D-6 on 01.04.2025 to the Commissioner of APCRDA (Respondent No.2) (Ex.P.16) flagging serious issues touching upon public interest insofar as the mining of minerals is concerned and also with regard to the livelihood of about 10,000 people who are dependent on the activities relating to mining, quarrying and stone crushers.
17. Respondent No.4 has further stated in his Letter dated 01.04.2025 that it has come to know that APCRDA (Respondent No.2) is approving conversion of Agricultural Land as Non-agricultural Land and Land Development Plans within the Mining Zone and the Road Metal mineral deposits in Sy.No.801 of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District; and that it has also been stated by the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (Respondent No.4) that if the conversion of land and permission with regard to layouts are approved for residential purposes, the Stone Quarrying as well as the Crushing Units which are already in existence for several decades would have to be permanently closed; that therefore the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (Respondent No.4) has requested APCRDA (Respondent No.2) to take into account the issues which are flagged by him (Respondent No.4), thereby prohibiting the conversion of Agricultural Land for residential purposes and also not to approve the Land Development Plans within a radius of one kilometer from the periphery of the existing Quarry Leases in Sy.No.801 of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District.
18. The facts in this case would also indicate that on 12.05.2025, the District Mines and Geology Officer, NTR District (Respondent No.5) had addressed a detailed letter bearing Letter No.124/Mining Zone-Paritala/2025 (Ex.P.2), wherein the District Mines and Geology Officer (Respondent No.5) has flagged several cardinal issues touching upon various Government Orders including G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 16.02.2002 (Ex.P.8), which speaks of the directions given to the District Collectors and the Social Welfare/Revenue Departments and also the Industries and Commerce Department not to allot any house sites or house site pattas or layouts in certain districts and in lands which are having rich/rare mineral wealth.
19. The G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 16.02.2002 (Ex.P.8) also speaks of the adverse impact that it may have on industrial growth as well as Government revenues if the contrary is done; that the said G.O. also states that the Director of Mines and Geology is mandated to take necessary action to identify the lands/clusters of lands having concentration of mineral wealth and also to inform the District Collectors about the occurrence of such minerals; and that the G.O. mandates all the District Collectors not to grant NOCs for such identified lands for any purpose other than mining.
20. The important facts in this case would also indicate that the District Mines and Geology Officer, NTR District (Respondent No.5), in his letter dated 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2), had also referred to other G.Os., namely G.O.Ms.No.153, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 01.03.2002 to state that Mining Zones were required to be created for the purpose of exploitable major deposits of road metal etc.,. This Court has noticed that as per Para-4 of G.O.Ms.No.59, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 04.10.2016, the Government is required to consult the Mining Department even for establishing Government Projects in public interest, if such projects fall within such zones or areas that contain mineral deposits.
21. Most importantly, the District Mines and Geology Officer, NTR District (Respondent No.5) had also stated in the subject letter addressed to APCRDA (Respondent No.2) about the Order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1907 & 1908 of 2000 dated 12.12.2003 in Mohammed Haroon Ansari & Anr. vs. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. & Ors. : (2004) 1 SCC 491, (herein after referred to as Mohammed Harroon‟s case) clearly indicating that residential permits cannot be granted within 1 KM of the mining and stone crushing operations.
22. It has also been stated by the District Mines & Geology Officer (Respondent No.5) that Mining and Quarrying activities were going on since the year 1920 in Sy.No.801 of Paritala Village and that as on date there are about 121 Quarry Leases covering an extent of 352.08 Hectares and 34 Mineral Processing Units in the said region and about 10,000 people are dependent on these Mining and Stone Crushing activities.
AVALIABILITY OF HUGE MINERAL DEPOSIT:
23. It is cardinally pointed out that about 10,56,24,000 cubic meters of mineral resource is still available in the subject Sy.No.801 of Paritala Village and that except these hillocks, no other Road Metal bearing areas are available in the NTR District; that the District Mining Officer had also reminded that APCRDA (Respondent No.2) itself had ordered supply of about 8,00,00,000 cubic meters of metal from the deposits available in Sy.No.801 of Paritala Village for meeting with the requirement of all the builders in the Caption Region; and that the District Mines and Geology Officer, NTR District (Respondent No.5) has therefore urged the Commissioner of APCRDA to the following effect:
“In the light of circumstance submitted above it is requested to Kindly
- Declare the subject Quarrying/Crushing Unit areas located in Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District as Industrial Mining Zone as the subject area falls in Capital Region.
- Prohibit the establishment of residential layouts within a radius of 1 Kilometre from the subject Mining Zone located in Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, NTR District near mineral bearing areas and hills.
- Conduct a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment and Risk Analysis before permitting any new residential layouts near to above Mining Zone.
- Ensure that the concerns and interests of the quarry owners, crusher industries, and labourers are taken into account while making decisions regarding land use and development in areas near mineral bearing zones.
District Mines & Geology Officer NTR District”
APCRDA WRONGLY FOLLOWS THE ORDER OF HON’BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BY IGNORING DICTUM OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN MOHAMMED HAROON’S CASE:
24. A. Having noted the facts, when this Court had indicated the necessity of adhering to the inescapable dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case (referred supra) to the effect that a distance of one kilometer is the Laxman Rekha drawn by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and it shall be maintained from the periphery of the Mining/Quarrying as well as Stone Crusher Units with that of human inhabitation, Ms. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for APCRDA had stated that the CRDA has been following an Order passed by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi dated 21.07.2020 in Original Application No.304/2019, wherein, the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal has fixed 200 meters as the safe distance from human inhabitation in Quarries where blasting is involved and 100 meters as the safe distance where blasting is not involved; that this has been fixed by following the Report submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on 09.07.2020; that the conclusions in the Report submitted by the CPCB are also extracted in the Order of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal; that the said conclusion has a note indicating that the Regulation for Danger Zone (500 meters) prescribed by the Directorate General of Mines Safety also have to be complied compulsorily and necessary measures should be taken to minimize the impact on environment; and that the note also indicates that if any of the States is having more stringent criteria than what is prescribed by the CPCB, the same shall be applicable.
24.B. Even the reliance placed by the Ld. Standing Counsel on Circular No: 11/APPCB/CFE/RO-ZO/HO/2014 DATED 17/09/2020 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) ( Respondent No. 7) is also of no avail in as much as the said circular is in conflict the order of Hon‟ble Supreme court in Mohammed Haroon’s case. The said Circular also refers to the Order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in O.A.No.304 of 2019. Accordingly, the said circular is impliedly set aside.
24.C. The Hon‟ble Apex court in Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India : (2004) 6 SCC 719 held in para 9 as under :
“9. ……………………………………….It must be remembered that law laid down by this Court is law of the land. The law so laid down is binding on all courts/tribunals and bodies. It is clear that circulars of the Board cannot prevail over the law laid down by this Court. However, it was pointed out that during hearing of Dhiren Chemical case [(2002) 2 SCC 127 : (2002) 139 ELT 3] because of circulars of the Board in many cases the Department had granted benefits of exemption notifications ”
(emphasis supplied)
24.D. Reiterating the same principle, Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries : (2008) 13 SCC 1 held in Para 7 as under :
“7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.”
(emphasis supplied)
24.E. In State of A.P. v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru : (2022) 8 SCC 156, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para-13 as under:
“13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.”
(emphasis supplied)
REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KANCHIKACHERLA TO THE COURT, DATED 12.07.2025 AND 14.07.2025 ARE OF NO AVAIL:
25. On the request made by one Sri Akula Narasimha Rao (one of the Applicants before CRDA) dated 04.04.2025 and Unofficial Respondent No.6, the Tahsildar along with Village Surveyor has conducted the survey for the purpose of measuring distance between the survey number where the Quarry blasting is taking place namely Survey Nos.801 and R.S.No.364 and had submitted a Report vide Endorsement dated 11.04.2025 stating that the distance between Survey No.801 (location of the Quarry) and Survey No.364 (proposed layout) is more than 800 meters. This Court has noticed that Respondent No.6 has sought permission from the CRDA (Respondent No.2) to develop layout in an extent of Ac.20.94 cents covering several Survey Numbers, namely Sy.Nos: 359, 359/1, 359/1-A, 360, 361, 363, 364 and 364/2 etc.,.
26. Under these circumstances, this Court fails to countenance as to why Sri Akula Narasimha Rao and Unofficial Respondent No.6 has sought survey for the purpose of measuring distance between Survey Nos. 801 and 364 only, leaving-out the other survey numbers which are involved in its layout. Admittedly, the entire extent that is sought to be developed by the Respondent No.6 is about Ac.20.94 cents that is spread over several survey numbers which are mentioned herein above. In any case, even assuming that the distance between the Survey No.801 and 364 is about 800 meters, this would not suffice for the purpose of granting of approval for the layout, since it is less than 1 KM as fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case and also for the reason that it is unclear up to which point on the land it is covered by the Mining Zone as declared in terms of G.O.Ms.No.153, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 01.03.2002.
IMPUGNED ORDER, ORDER OF HON’BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND CIRCULAR OF ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ARE IN CONFLIT WITH THE ORDER OF HON’BLE APEX COURT:
27. It appears from the Order of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal dated 21.07.2020 that the Order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court fixing the safe distance in Mohammed Haroon’s case has not been noticed by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal. Therefore, without noticing the Order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case, the National Green Tribunal has passed an Order on 21.07.2020 directing that the criteria suggested by CPCB in its Report dated 09.09.2020 is required to be followed throughout India with a further direction that “the CPCB may monitor compliance”. It is a settled law that the dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court would prevail over the Order of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in case of inconsistency between the two Orders.
PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE WRIT PETITIONS IS DECLINED BY THE COURT:
28. During the course of the hearing, when this Court had indicated that the Order of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal dated 21.07.2020 is at variance with the safe distance of 1 KM that is fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, during one of the hearing i.e., on 18.09.2025, the Petitioners, who had challenged the Impugned Proceedings, had surprisingly taken a U-turn and orally requested the permission of the Court to withdraw all the Writ Petitions without filing any Interlocutory Applications; however, this Court, having noticed that the Impugned Orders in these cases are in direct conflict with the law laid by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case had declined the request of the Writ Petitioners to withdraw these Writ Petitions and reserved for Orders inasmuch as the Court cannot allow perpetuation of illegality on technical grounds by permitting the petitioner to withdraw these writ petitions by applying the doctrine of Dominus Litis [Please see : (1) Anant Prasad Pandey v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal : 2001 SCC OnLine MP 274 – Para No.1 (2) M/s Sunil Safety Glass Industries v. RIICO & Anr : 2002 (5) WLN 557 – Para No.8 (3) Vijay Kumar Gupta v. State of Maharashtra : 2008 SCC OnLine BOM 283 – Para Nos.5 to 5.4]. Mohammed Haroon’s case is a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India:
29. Under the present circumstances, this Court is required to examine: “whether the Order passed by the National Green Tribunal dated 21.07.2020 could have been relied on by the CRDA by completely ignoring the „binding precedent‟ laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case?” The answer is an emphatic „No‟. The legal research undertaken by this Court would also disclose that the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has remained unaffected for over two decades and that, this dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex Court was referred to as a binding precedent in several other Judgments rendered by the various High Courts and also by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well.
30. Having regard to the above facts, it would be necessary to extract the relevant portion of the Order of the Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case, which is as under:
“8. We may, at once, notice that the High Court was persuaded by public interest involved in the matter in initiating proceedings on the basis of a letter sent to it. The anxiety of the High Court was further exhibited by its concern in the matter in constituting an Expert Committee and although that Expert Committee stated that a distance of 1 km is a safe distance between the site under quarry lease and the residential locality or GLSR, but in order to be safer than what the Expert Committee observed, the High Court increased the distance by another 1 km. Particularly when the assessment made by the Centre of Mining Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, concluded that there is no impact by the quarry operations carried on by the appellants before us on GLSR or Osmansagar lake or nearby residential locality, it is unnecessary to impose condition that the distance of 1 km for carrying out the quarry activities should be converted to 2 km. The affidavit of the Pollution Control Board indicates that if proper safeguards are adopted as indicated in the said affidavit, it will not cause any air, water or noise pollution, much less dust particles which affect the water supply system in GLSR or Osmansagar lake. We, therefore, direct that the order made by the High Court is modified by directing that the distance of 1 km is a safe distance between the site of the quarry leases and the residential localities or GLSR or Osmansagar lake. The guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board specified 1 km to be a safe distance between crusher and human habitation from 17-1-1997. Prior to that it was only 500 metres away from the national highway and 100 metres away from the State highway, major district roads and other roads. That is why this Court granted an interim order earlier and directed that no mining and stone-crushing operations shall be carried on within a distance of 1 km from the lake or reservoir and 500 metres from human habitations. This order will hold good in respect of all such mining leases which have been granted prior to 17-12-1996. It is not necessary to advert to any other details or arguments raised in the petitions filed before the High Court or in appeals before this Court. Suffice it to observe that the impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified only to the extent indicated by us and all other terms set out by the High Court in regard to the safeguards to be adopted in maintenance of the environment shall remain intact. Further, it is certainly necessary that the appellants before carrying on any of the mining and stone-crushing activities obtain necessary clearance from the Pollution Control Board and must comply with such conditions as may be imposed by the Pollution Control Board. It is open to the Pollution Control Board to take such action as may be necessary to enforce the conditions imposed by them under the relevant statutes.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. The above extract of the Hon‟ble Apex Court would clearly indicate that for all Stone Quarries and Stone Crushers where the Mines and Geology Department has granted permission to establish the crusher units after 17.12.1996 shall follow One Kilometer rule. The facts recorded herein above would clearly indicate that the Respondent No.2 had completely ignored two Letters addressed by the Authorities of the Department of Mining and Geology dated 01.04.2025 (Ex.P.16) and 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2). This Court has already noted that the Department of Mining and Geology has flagged very serious issues including that of the Order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case. While issues concerning public interest have been raised by the Department of Mines and Geology, in complete ignorance of the same, the impugned Order came to be passed by Respondent No.2. In any case, the impugned Order is directly in conflict with the dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as indicated above, and therefore, would fall a foul of legality inasmuch as the Authorities under the Central Government as well as State Governments shall not pass any orders contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court (Please see (1) M.P. Electricity Board V. Shree Baboo : (2002) 9 SCC 704 – Para-5 (2) M.C. Mehta V. Union of India : (2002) 4 SCC 356 - Para-47 (3) State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach: (2013) 7 SCC 25 - Para 38 and 39).
32. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya v. Collector & District Magistrate: 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6314 had extensively referred the Order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case and confirmed that the human inhabitation cannot be allowed within one kilometer radius of Stone Crushers. This Order of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of Gujarat dated 12.03.2012 was challenged by the Quarry Contractors in Sai Quarry & Anr v. Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya & Ors (SLP (C) No.14815 of 2012). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, dismissing the said SLP on 17.03.2015, held as under:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, while not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, we are disposed to direct the Pollution Board to frame the policy within a period of six weeks in accordance with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Pollution Control Board may add other measures by which the pollution can be controlled. However, under no circumstances, the distances of having a crusher unit as determined by the High Court should be lessened.
With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. The above extract would indicate that the Hon‟ble Apex Court had not only upheld the Order of the Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat, but had also, in addition, directed the Pollution Control Board to frame the policy within a period of six (06) weeks in accordance with the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat. Needless to mention that the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat had passed the said order by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case. The above extract of the Order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court would also indicate that under no circumstances, the distance of One Kilometer between the Quarry and the human inhabitation or between the Stone Crushers and the human inhabitation can be reduced below One Kilometer.
34. This apart, the reliance placed by the Ld. Standing Counsel of the Respondent No.2 on an Order passed by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No.304 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2020 is of no avail inasmuch as the said Order is in conflict with the dicta of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case & Sai Quarry & Anr v. Yakubbhai Sharifbhai Aaglodiya & Ors (SLP (C) No.14815 of 2012). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT, : (2000) 6 SCC 645 held in Para-9 as under:
“9. Before parting,…………………………………………….……………………………………….Article 144 of the Constitution obliges all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Failure to comply with the directions of this Court by the Tribunal has to be deplored. We expect the Tribunal to be more responsive and more sensitive to the directions of this Court. We leave this aspect in this case by making only this observation.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. In this context, this Court is reminded of the dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Para-25 in the case of Aneesh D. Lawande v. State of Goa : 2014 (1) SCC 554. Para-24 and 25 of the said Order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court is usefully extracted hereunder:
“24. It is really perplexing that the State Government in spite of the order of this Court took a decision on 25-7- 2013 to cancel the provisional admissions given to the students on the basis of NEET merit examination. The act indubitably shows total lack of prudence. The authorities in the Government are required to understand that the basic governance consists in the act of taking considered, well vigilant, appropriate and legal decisions. It is the sacrosanct duty of the Government to follow the law and the pronouncements of the court and not to take recourse to such subterfuges. The Government should have reminded itself the saying of Benjamin Disraeli:
“I repeat — that all power is a trust — that we are accountable for its exercise — that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and all must exist.”
25. It may not be out of place to state here that every public authority has a duty coupled with power. Before exercising the power one is required to understand the object of such power and the conditions in which the same is to be exercised. Similarly, when one performs public duty he has to remain alive to the legal position and not be oblivious of it. In this context, we may refer to the authority in Deptt. of Public Health, UT Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh [(1997) 9 SCC 199 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1044] wherein the Court has reproduced the observations of Farl Cairns L.C. in the House of Lords in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford [Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214 : (1874-80) All ER Rep 43 (HL)] which was quoted with approval by this Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] . The succinctly stated passage reads thus: (Gordhandas Bhanji case [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] , AIR p. 21, para 27)
“27. … „… there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so.‟” (Julius case [Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214 : (1874-80) All ER Rep 43 (HL)] , AC pp. 222-23) But, unfortunately, here the authorities of the State Government have felt courageous enough to play possum and proceeded to crucify the fate of the candidates who had been protected by the verdict of this Court. Such an action is absolutely impermissible. Thus analysed the letter dated 25-7-2013 deserves to be lancinated and we so do. The writ petitioners, who have been admitted on the basis of the NEET examination, shall be allowed to prosecute their studies.”
(emphasis supplied)
CONCLUSIONS:
36. The above extract would clearly remind the inescapable constitutional obligation on the part of the public authorities, pan India, to remain alive to the legal position and that the said Authorities cannot afford to be oblivious of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, which forms the binding precedent.
37. Under these circumstances, if this Court permits the Writ Petitioners to withdraw the present Writ Petitions, for the reasons best known to them, the effect would be to legitimize the impugned order which is passed by Respondent No.2 in complete violation of the binding precedent of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case. When once this Court finds that the Authority has exceeded its powers by passing an Order contrary to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, an incumbent judicial duty and responsibility is cast upon this Court to rectify the gross anomaly perpetrated by the Executive by setting aside such proceeding. This Court is conscious of the fact that if this Order is allowed to stay, it would tantamount to permitting the executive to pass an Order that would directly conflict with the Rule of Law as ordained by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned Order cannot be allowed to stand for the reasons aforesaid.
38. Accordingly, these Writ Petition Nos.17100 and 17548 of 2025 are allowed and the impugned Order dated 12.06.2025 is set aside. Needless to state that any other identical Order passed by Respondent No.2 in ignorance and in violation of the Order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case shall also stand impliedly set aside. While considering the Applications for approval of layouts, not only Respondent No.2 but also other Authorities like Department of Panchayat Raj, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and the Officials in the Departments of Revenue, Housing and Urban Development Authorities including the CRDA shall keep in mind the binding precedent laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case and also the other Government Orders before granting permissions for establishment of industries and for construction of residential houses or any commercial structures.
39. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Principal Secretaries of Revenue, Finance, Panchayat Raj, Municipal Administration and Mines and Minerals, Housing and all the Urban Development Authorities including the APCRDA, Government of Andhra Pradesh within two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court.
40. The Principal Secretaries of the above Departments Boards and Authorities are directed to communicate a copy of this Order with necessary directions to everyone in the executive hierarchy about the inescapable constitutional obligation on the part of the Authorities to follow the dictum of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohammed Haroon’s case.
41. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology is directed to communicate the Order of this Court to the Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh within two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this Court for effective compliance. Upon receipt of such Order, the Chief Secretary, shall comply with the directions of this Court within four weeks.
42. In the light of above findings in W.P.Nos. 17100 and 17548 of 2025, W.P.No.9865 of 2025 is disposed of as having become infructuous.
43. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.