Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16386

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
MODERN CRUSHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos: 9865, 17100 AND 17548 of 2025

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

Administrative authorities are bound by the Supreme Court's mandate requiring a one-kilometer buffer zone between human habitation and stone quarrying or crushing units. Orders from statutory tribunals cannot override this binding constitutional precedent, and any executive action violating this distance is illegal and subject to being set aside.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities - Direction of one kilometer safe distance between human inhabitation and stone quarries/crushing units is a binding precedent that cannot be ignored by subordinate authorities in favour of conflicting orders from statutory tribunals. (Paras 14, 27, 29, 31)

(B) Environmental Law - Stone quarrying and crushing units - Safety distance - The one kilometer rule for human inhabitation remains the settled law and any executive action or approval for residential layouts within this restricted periphery is illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 30, 33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, operating stone crushing units, challenged the approval of a housing layout by local development authorities. The authorities, despite having professional reports from mining departments highlighting the necessity of a buffer zone and the existence of mineral-rich land, granted layout approval in proximity to the quarries. The petitioners contended that this approval violated safety norms and established judicial precedents regarding the one kilometer buffer zone between residential areas and mining activity.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the authority failed to consider professional objections from the mining department and erroneously relied on a conflicting order from a statutory tribunal, failing to recognize the primacy of the constitutional court's dictate. The court refused to permit withdrawal of the petitions to prevent the perpetuation of illegal administrative acts under the guise of the doctrine of Dominus Litis.

Issues: The main issues were whether a subordinate development authority can approve residential layouts within the proximity prohibited by the Supreme Court, and whether executive authorities are bound by the one kilometer rule despite contrary orders from statutory tribunals.

Ratio Decidendi: The law laid down by the Supreme Court constitutes the law of the land and is binding on all bodies under Article 141; administrative decisions contrary to this dictum are legally unsustainable, and executive authorities have a constitutional obligation to remain aware of and adhere to these binding precedents.

Result: Writs allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the dispute regarding residential layout approvals near mining zones. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. authorities must consider mineral wealth and environmental guidelines before sanctioning layouts. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. supreme court precedent on safe distance overrides ngt/pollution board circulars. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. judicial duty to prevent illegal administrative acts violating binding supreme court precedents. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. court order setting aside impugned layouts and mandating compliance with supreme court distances. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

! Counsel for the petitioners :

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.

^Counsel for respondents :

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.

?CASES REFERRED:

(1) (1974) 2 SCC 596

(2) (2001) 5 SCC 664

(3) (2006) 6 SCC 430

(4) (2009) 13 SCC 758

(9) (2008) 13 SCC 1

(10) (2022) 8 SCC 156

(11) 2001 SCC OnLine MP 274

(12) 2002 (5) WLN 557

(13) 2008 SCC OnLine BOM 283

(14) (2002) 9 SCC 704

(15) (2002) 4 SCC 356

(16) (2013) 7 SCC 25

(17) 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6314

(18) SLP (C) No.14815 of 2012

(19) (2000) 6 SCC 645

(20) 2014 (1) SCC 554

The Court made the following 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 abbetting 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16386

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHGannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, JMODERN CRUSHERS – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – RespondentWRIT PETITION Nos: 9865, 17100 AND 17548 of 2025

Cases Referred (16)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
MODERN CRUSHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos: 9865, 17100 AND 17548 of 2025