The Telangana High Court has allowed a farmer to challenge Pollution Control Board consent orders permitting quarrying, stone crushing and blasting activities at Akuthotapally village in Ranga Reddy district, while warning that contempt proceedings could be initiated if the activities begin contrary to a submission made before the Court.
A Division Bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a petition filed by farmer Anji Reddy. The petitioner alleged that authorities had failed to effectively regulate quarrying, stone crushing and blasting activities in Survey Nos. 302 and 304 of Akuthotapally village, in Amangal mandal.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the permissions had been issued without a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact. The petition also raised the issue of the cumulative impact of other mining operations in the surrounding areas, placing the dispute within a broader question of how multiple quarrying and crushing activities are assessed together rather than individually.
During the hearing, the Government counsel submitted that no quarrying or related activities had commenced at the site. The Division Bench took note of that submission and clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to challenge the consent orders issued by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board before the appropriate appellate authority.
The Court also recorded that if quarrying, stone crushing or blasting activities were started contrary to the submission made before it, the petitioner would be at liberty to directly initiate contempt proceedings. This observation links the Government’s statement in court to the immediate legal consequences of any departure from it.
The order does not cancel the Pollution Control Board’s consent orders. Instead, it preserves the petitioner’s right to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy against those permissions. The proceedings were disposed of after the Bench recorded the submissions and granted the petitioner liberty to take that legal route.
The dispute highlights the regulatory role of consent orders in activities that can alter land use and affect the surrounding environment. It also brings the assessment of cumulative impacts into the legal record, although the Court’s order, as reported, does not determine whether the permissions were environmentally inadequate or whether the alleged impacts have occurred.
The next step available to the petitioner is to approach the appropriate appellate authority challenging the Pollution Control Board’s consent orders. Any commencement of the activities contrary to the Government counsel’s submission may also lead to contempt proceedings, subject to the petitioner initiating that process before the Court.
