THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.36517 of 2021 and SUO MOTU W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Ms. Ch.Mounika, learned counsel representing Mr. Boda Vinodhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.36517 of 2021, Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Arvind Geedipelli, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021, Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appears for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in SUO MOTU W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board appears for respondent No.11 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021 and respondent No.4 in SUO MOTU W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024 and Mr. K.Goutham Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geology Department appears for respondent Nos.9 and 12 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021.

2. Writ petition was preferred for declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.2 in not taking action 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.403 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 India” English Daily Newspaper dated 26.08.2024 with headline “24x7 blasting clears hillock, irks locals in Jubilee Hills community”.

3. In the present proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in Suo Motu W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, learned Standing Counsel for the 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.5, specific affidavit was filed stating that after due permission from the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is respondent No.14 in W.P.No.36517 of

2021 and respondent No.8 in Suo Motu W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, the blasting operations have been carried out. The operations have come to a close on 03.06.2025.

5. On the previous occasion, learned Additional Advocate General was allowed time to get complete instructions on the issue referred to in the order dated 28.08.2025 as regards the competent authority, who is empowered under the relevant statute to permit use of explosives for carrying out blasting at the site in question since there appear to be some doubt as to the powers of the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad to grant such permission where use of explosives are required for blasting within the precincts of the city.

6. A comprehensive affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. The relevant extract of the affidavit is incorporated hereunder:

“4. It is further respectfully submitted that the said M/s. Patel Mining and Infra Projects submitted representation dated. 12.05.2021 wherein they stated that, they are having Technical Data, safety procedures and precautions in connection with Hard Rock Excavation works with mild controlled blasting operation for the above said Project. The said firm of M/s. Patel Mining and Infra Projects also claimed to be doing the control blasting operations, since last 25 years 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 blasting operations during the execution. i.e., (i). A pre-blast survey will be conducted at the blasting site by