Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ctp Granites And Exports vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 February, 2024
APHC010619982023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3446]
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF
FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.1266 & 1267 of 2023
Between:
CTP Granites and Exports, Rep by its Sole Proprietor
Selvamanickam, S/o. S.Manikkam, Sole Proprietor CTP
Granite and Exports, R/o. Room No.3, Police Welfare
Complex, Opposite HDFC Bank, Mittoor, Chittoor
District.
...Appellant in both appeals
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-I) Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur
District
2. The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa.
4. K Malarvizhi, W/o K. Ganesan, Aged 42 years, Occ
Business, R/o Door NO.2/309-A, Harini Arcade,
Vadavalli, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu-641041.
...Respondents in both appeals
Counsel for the Appellant :Sri M. Yogesh Kanna along with Sri
Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Mines and Geology
Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri K.S. Naveen
Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral)
These two Letters Patent appeals are preferred against
the judgments and orders, dated 06.07.2023, respectively
passed in W.P.Nos.3323 & 3303 of 2023.
2. By virtue of the judgments and orders impugned,
the learned single Judge had dismissed both the writ petitions
filed by the petitioner - appellant herein.
3. The dispute in the present petitions pertain to the
transfer of the leases, which were earlier issued in favour of
the petitioner - appellant herein, to respondent No.4 -
K. Malarvizhi. It appears that quarry leases for colour
granite over an extent of 7.152 Hectares and 4.615 Hectares
in Sy.No.738/P of Vandadi Village, Chinnamandyam Mandal,
YSR District, were granted in favour of the appellant in the
year 2016 and the same was to hold good for a period of
twenty years i.e., till 2036. Subsequently, a GPA was issued
by the sole Proprietor of the CTP Granite & Exports -
appellant in favour of respondent No.4. A letter of authority,
dated 19.10.2018, also is stated to have been issued in favour
of respondent No.4. Subsequently, on 23.11.2018, a
partnership was entered into between the petitioner -
appellant herein and respondent No.4 and was registered on
29.11.2018 with the Registrar of Firms. Thereafter, it
appears that an application was moved, dated 19.05.2022, for
transferring the leasehold rights in favour of respondent
No.4.
4. According to the appellant, the said application
was never signed by the Proprietor of the appellant and is
stated to be forged. Legal notice in this regard was issued in
the month of July, 2022 to the official respondents with a
view to prevent them from acting on any such application.
However, according to the counsel for the appellant, the legal
notice was withdrawn on 16.07.2022 and this is stated to be
in view of the negotiations which had been entered into
between the petitioner - appellant and the private respondent
No.4. Subsequently, it appears that the leasehold rights were
transferred by the Mines and Geology Department in favour
of respondent No.4, which was challenged by the petitioner
before the learned single Judge, primarily on the ground that
in terms of Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 [for short, „the Rules of
1966‟], any mining lease, which was granted for non-captive
purposes, could not be transferred.
For purposes of reference, Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) is
reproduced hereunder:
"(viii) The prospecting licenses and quarry leases
granted for the purpose of non-captive consumption
are not transferrable."
5. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge
appears to have dismissed both the writ petitions primarily
on the ground that there was suppression of material facts
inasmuch as the petitioner had not reflected in the petition
regarding the factum of having issued a legal notice on 6th of
July, 2022 and its subsequent withdrawal on 16th of July,
2022. Not only this, a notarized affidavit, dated 12th of July,
2022, which was subsequently brought on the writ Court
records was also stated to have been suppressed by the
petitioner - appellant herein and in those circumstances, the
writ petitions came to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that
there was no suppression of material facts and in any case,
the issue was whether the leasehold rights granted in regard
to mining for non-captive purposes could have at all been
transferred to third party contrary to Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of
the Rules of 1966.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for the
Mines and Geology Department as also counsel for
respondent No.4 would submit that the prohibition does not
apply in view of Rule 12(5)(h)(viii-a) of the Rules of 1966,
which came to be substituted by virtue of Government Order
bearing No.58, dated 08.03.2019, which envisages as under:
"The holder of a Lease, with the prior written approval
of the Director of Mines & Geology, may be permitted to
transfer such Lease in favour of the existing mineral
based industry or to a new mineral based industry,
which shall be established within 2 years from the date
of execution of transfer lease deed. If the Industry is not
established within two (2) years, no further extension of
time shall be granted and the lease shall be cancelled.."
8. Be that as it may, mining rights issued in favour of
the petitioner could have been transferred but with the prior
approval of the Director of Mines and Geology, in terms of the
aforementioned Rule. From the record, it can be seen that
such an approval was in fact granted by the Director of Mines
and Geology, vide his order, dated 21.06.2022, based upon
which the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, on
29.06.2022, issued the orders transferring the mining rights
from the petitioner - appellant to respondent No.4.
9. In our opinion, there was no illegality committed
by the official respondents in transferring the mining rights
to respondent No.4. However, the controversy as to whether
the application for transfer was at all fraudulent or not is a
matter which we do not wish to enter into and it is left open to
the appellant to agitate or challenge the said issue before an
appropriate forum.
10. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the
present appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Vjl
