The Noble Minerals, vs M/S Sireesha Geo Granites
2023 Latest Caselaw 2569 Tel

  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