Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12497

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
PAVAN GRANITE METAL WORKS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NOs.9865, 17100 AND 17548 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Sai Kumar, Dheera Kanishka, Gudapati Venkateswara Rao
For the Respondents: S. Pranathi, M. Srinu Babu, G. Venkat Sailendra, G. Ramakrishna

Orders of the Supreme Court under Article 141 constitute binding law which supersede inconsistent circulars or orders from statutory tribunals. Authorities are mandatorily required to maintain a one-kilometer safety distance between mining/crushing units and human habitation, a mandate that cannot be diluted by administrative action.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court as binding precedent - Authorities failing to adhere to mandatory distances between mining units and human habitation - Legality of layout approval.

(B) Mining Operations - Safety distance - One kilometer rule for human habitation - Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 - Rule 5 - Whether statutory tribunal or authority circulars can override apex court mandates - Held, constitutional court orders prevail over statutory tribunal orders. (Paras 14, 21, 24A, 30, 31, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, operating stone crushing units, challenged the approval of a residential layout granted by an urban development authority, contending it violated the mandatory one-kilometer safety distance from mining zones established by judicial precedent. The authority had ignored objections from the mining department and relied on lower distance criteria prescribed by a environmental tribunal. The court refused to permit the withdrawal of the petitions to prevent the perpetuation of illegality.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the authority completely ignored the binding judicial dicta regarding the one-kilometer safety radius between mining/crushing activities and human habitation. It held that guidelines from administrative circulars or environmental tribunals cannot supersede or dilute the law of the land declared by the Supreme Court. The impugned layout approval was found to be in direct conflict with the rule of law.

Issues: Whether an urban development authority can approve residential layouts within one kilometer of mining and stone crushing zones, and whether orders by a statutory tribunal regarding safety distances prevail over the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Dicta of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution constitutes the law of the land and is binding on all authorities. When an executive authority acts in violation of such binding precedent, the court has a constitutional duty to rectify the anomaly and set aside the illegal action, irrespective of any attempted withdrawal of the petition by the parties.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned layout approval set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge to housing layout approval near mining zones due to pollution concerns. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. disputed layout approval despite official administrative opposition regarding mining zone proximity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. failure of authorities to consider mining department objections and legal guidelines on distance criteria. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. supreme court precedent on safe distance overrides ngt or pollution board circulars. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. courts must prevent perpetuation of illegality; apex court rulings are strictly binding. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. setting aside illegal layout approvals and mandating state-wide compliance with judicial safety standards. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

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 approv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12497

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHGannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, JPAVAN GRANITE METAL WORKS – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF AP – RespondentWRIT PETITION NOs.9865, 17100 AND 17548 OF 2025

Cases Referred (16)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
PAVAN GRANITE METAL WORKS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NOs.9865, 17100 AND 17548 OF 2025