THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1559 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
None for the appellant.
Ms. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel representing
Ms. N.Shoba, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Kondaparthi Srinivas, learned Government
Pleader for Mines & Geology, Industries and Commerce
Department for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order
dated 30.09.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.771 of 2001, by which writ petition preferred by
respondent No.1 has been allowed on the ground that the
erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has failed to
follow the mandate prescribed under Rule 12(5) of the
Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966
(briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules'). Accordingly,
::2::
a direction has been issued to the Director of Mines and
Geology, Hyderabad to invite applications for grant of
prospecting license/quarry lease in respect of land
measuring 1.33 hectares in Survey No.168 and to consider
and decide the applications received in accordance with
Rule 12(5) of the Rules.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to in this order as per their ranking before the
learned Single Judge.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioner was granted a quarry lease of Grey Granite on 09.06.1989 by Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, in respect of an area measuring 5 hectares in Survey No.168 of Odayaram Village, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District. The lease was renewed on 22.08.1994 for a further period of 15 years and a lease deed was executed on 11.10.1994.
5. The Director of Mines and Geology granted similar quarry lease on 11.12.2000 in favour of respondent ::3::
No.4 in respect of an area measuring 1.17 hectares in the same survey number. Thereafter, a quarry lease was executed and a work order was issued on 15.01.2001.
6. In the year 1994, respondent No.4 approached the Mines Department to get the survey conducted and to fix up the boundaries on the ground that the petitioner and some other lessees operating their respective quarries in the same survey number are in occupation of excess areas over and above the areas for which they were granted mining leases. Accordingly, a survey was conducted and it was found that petitioner and one K.S.R Granites were in occupation of excess area to the extent of 1.33 hectares and 0.13 hectares respectively.
7. The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad thereupon issued a show cause notice dated 22.03.1999 by placing reliance on a joint inspection which was conducted between 17.01.1999 to 20.01.1999. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the excess area situated on the northern side be not deleted and necessary action be not taken. The petitioner filed its explanation. However, ::4::
by an order dated 11.12.2000, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh ordered deletion of 1.33 hectares of excess area which was in occupation of the petitioner as per the sketch prepared by Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad.
8. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh considered the application submitted by the petitioner dated 12.08.1999 for grant of lease in respect of the buffer area available in between the existing leasehold areas and granted lease in respect of 0.54 hectares as against 1.00 hectare, which it applied for. The application submitted by respondent No.4 dated 02.08.1999 for lease of 1.00 hectare, out of gap areas, was rejected. The application submitted by the petitioner dated 12.08.1999 for grant of lease in respect of an area admeasuring 1 hectare which was in possession of the petitioner in excess of the area allotted to it on lease was also rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner challenged the said orders in the writ petition.
9. The learned Single Judge by a common order dated 30.09.2008 passed in W.P.No.771 of 2001 inter alia ::5::
found that there is no compliance with Rule 12(5) of the Rules. The learned Single Judge therefore directed the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to invite applications for grant of prospecting license/quarry lease in respect of an area admeasuring 1.33 hectares in Survey No.168 and thereafter to consider and decide the applications received by him in accordance with Rule 12(5) of the Rules. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
10. In the grounds of appeal, it has been urged that Rule 12(A) of the Rules grants discretion to the authorities while granting the granite leases. A ground has also been taken that learned Single Judge without taking into account the fact of Rule 12 of the Rules has passed the order.
11. We have perused the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
::6::
12. An area measuring 1.33 hectares was allotted on lease to respondent No.4 without inviting any applications. Rule 12 of the Rules governs granting of quarry lease for any minor mineral. Clause (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules deals with grant of quarry lease for granite useful for cutting and polishing. Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules provides that when an application for grant of prospecting license or quarry lease for granite is made, the same shall be disposed of by the Director in the order of their receipt. The aforesaid Rule further provides that where more than one application is received on the same day, the Director shall grant lease or license to the deserving applicant on merits for reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule 12 of the Rules was interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Pradeep Minerals & Granites (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P. 1. Learned Single Judge of this Court held that an advertisement should be issued inviting applications. The said judgment was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.750 and 924 of 1998. The Division Bench rejected 1 1998 (3) ALD 519 ::7::
the contention of the State Government that in the absence of Rule providing for procedure of advertisement, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge was not correct. The Division Bench inter alia held that in view of doctrine of fairness in action, Rule 12 of the Rules has to be interpreted in the manner in which the same has been interpreted by learned Single Judge.
13. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.750 and 924 of 1998 inter alia has held that the State Government has failed to invite the applications for grant of quarry lease. Therefore, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad has been directed to invite the applications for grant of prospecting license/quarry lease in respect of area measuring 1.33 hectares in Survey No.168, which was retrieved from the petitioner and has further directed to consider and decide the applications received by him in accordance with Rule 12(5) of the Rules.
::8::
14. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the view taken by a division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.750 and 924 of 1998.
15. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 21.09.2023 KL