Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE, P.L.N.SHARMA, S.S.M.QUADRI
Government Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Y.S.Vivekananda Reddy - Respondent
W.A.Nos.131/94
Decided On : 09-02-94
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. N. Subba Reddy,Mr. P. Innayya Reddy
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Art. 162 and 7th Schedule, list 1, Entry 54 and list, II, Entry 23 and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951, Sec. 2 - State Government has no legislative or executive power in respect of mines and mineral development.
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, Sec. 21 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 37 Consent given by State Government to lessee State Mining Corporation to enter into sub-lease for mining a major mineral - Sub- lessee executing sub-lease deed and commencing mining operations - State Government has no power to withdraw consent later.
Held : (1) The power under Section 4-A of the Act regarding premature termination of leasee is available to the Central Government in case of any mineral other than minor mineral and in the event of the Central Government forming the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of the regulation of mines and mineral development, among other reasons specified therein so to do, it can request the St ate Government to make premature determination of- the leases. This power is available to the State Government only in respect of minor mineral. Barytes is admittedly a major mineral. Therefore, the Government (Lessor-State) cannot exercise the power under Sec. 4-A and request the Lessee-Corporation to terminate the sub-leases in question prematurely as Barytes is included in the first schedule and ceased to be a minor mineral from 1986.
Even assuming that the State Government is competent to order premature termination of lease as well as withdraw the consent given under rule 37 of the Rules, the impugned orders cannot be sustained as they were passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties and in violation of the principles of natural justice as admittedly the sub-leasees have been carrying on the mining operations after they entered into sub-leases which were pursuant to consent granted under rule 37 of the Rules.
Held : (2) Parliament can make law providing regulation of mines and mineral development and to the extent to which such regulation and development is declared .by. Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest, it will be under the exclusive control of the Union. In so far as List II (State List) is concerned the relevant entry i.e., Entry 23 therein, makes it clear that the legislative power of the State in relation to regulation of mines and mineral development is subject to the provisions of List I with respect to the regulation and development under the control of the Union.
In view of declaration under Sec. 2 of the Act, the State is denuded of legislative powers to enact any law in respect of regulation of mines and mineral development, hence the State can claim no executive power touching any aspect of regulation of mines and mineral development.
Premature termination of the subleases by the State Govt. by the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 402 cannot be upheld even under the executive power of the State Govt. under Article 162 of the Constitution.
Held : (3) The power to withdraw the consent earlier given by the State Govt. under rule 37 of the Rules to the Lessee to enter into sub-leases, can be exercised so long as it is capable of being rescinded or withdrawn as this exercise should be subject to the like conditions. When on the strength of the consent to enter into sub-leases forming, the lessee has executed sub-lease deed and thus the consent culminated into contract and the sub-leasee has already commenced the mining operations, the consent has worked out itself and cannot be withdrawn at that stage as the conditions existing at the time of giving consent have changed. A close reading of the Rule 37 of the Rules, shows that having regard to the scheme of the Rule, the concept of withdrawal of the consent given to the Leasee for entering into sub-leases is inconsistent with the power conferred thereunder so by invoking section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the State Government cannot purport to withdraw the consent. The Advocate General, for Appellant & for Respondent No.3 Mr. Kapil Sival, Senior Counsel for R-1.
( 1 ) THESE ten writ appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 1/02/1994 of a learned single Judge allowing five writ petitions filed by sub-lessees of Barytes Ore granted by Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited tin their favour, Five Writ Appeals are filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and five Writ Appeals are filed by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited. The Division Bench which dealt with these appeals, having referred to the aspects debated before it, came to the conclusion that the question of justiciability of rights and privileges claimed by the parties and the obligations and the duties cast upon the authorities in such contingencies and many other questions which may relevantly arise for consideration by the Court are of considerable significance to the public at large and they require adjudication and resolution by a larger Bench. Accordingly these appeals are posted before us.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised before us, which we shall refer to presently, it would be necessary to notice the factual background which gave rise to these appeals. There are large extents of lands bearing gray varieties of barytes in Anantarajupet village and Mangampet village-erstwhile Inam village of Cuddapah District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 27, Industries and Commerce (Mines. III) Department dated 7/01/1974 declaring that the Barytes Ore bearing areas in the villages of Mangampet and Anantarajupet of Cuddapah District except those already leased out were reserved with immediate effect for exploitation in the public sector. In pursuance of the said orders, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the lessor-State ) sanctioned the mining lease of Barytes over an extent of 22. 799 hectares (on various Survey Nos. , specified in G. O. , mentioned hereunder) for a period of 20 years in favour of M/s. The Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation Limited, Hyderabad which subsequently came to be known as the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as the lessee-Corporation ) in G. O. Ms. No. 151, Industries and Commerce (Mines. III) Department dated 10/02/1975, subject to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the Act) and the rules made thereunder and also subject to the condition in Form k prescribed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short the rules ).
( 3 ) IT appears that the surface rights in the said lands vested in the pattedars. They filed Revision Petitions before the Central Government challenging the validity of the order granting the lease in favour of the lessee-Corporation and also obtained stay of the operation of the lease granted in favour of the lessee-Corporation in G. O. Ms. No. 151. Thus, the Lessee-Corporation was disabled from undertaking the mining operation. This impasse was resolved by a tripartite agreement entered into among the lessor-State, lessee-Corporation and the pattedars. By virtue of that agreement, as modified subsequently, the pattedars were obliged to withdraw the revision petitions and request the Central Government for dismissal of the revision petitions and the stay petitions; the lessor-State undertook to give consent for granting of sub-leases under the Rules in respect of the defined extents in favour of the pattedars and the lessee-Corporation had agreed to grant sub-leases of the said defined extents of the land in favour of the pattedars. Accordingly, the revision petitions were withdrawn, consent under R. 37 for grant of sub-leases was given and the sub-lease deeds were executed between the lessee-Corporation and the pattedars-sub-lessees. While so, the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly appointed a House-Committee to go into the complaints of illegal mining operations of Barytes. The House-Committee submitted its report on 24/05/1993. Accepting the reco
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
