Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Y.S.Raja Reddy - Appellant
Versus
A.P. Mining Corporation Ltd., Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-22-88
MINING LEASE - SUB-LEASE - CONSENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT - FORM OF SUB-LEASE - CONDITIONS IN SUB-LEASE - VALIDITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 19 (1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a mine owner, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation Limited (the 1st respondent) in insisting that applications for transport permits for barytes ore from the petitioner's mines be routed through them. The petitioner contended that this action was contrary to rules, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought interim directions to allow him to apply directly to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for transport permits after paying royalty, taxes, cess, etc. to the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sub-lease executed by the 1st respondent in favor of the petitioner was not invalid merely because it was not in Form O as prescribed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The court held that the consent of the State Government under Rule 37 (1) (a) of the Rules was sufficient to validate the sub-lease, even if it was not in the prescribed form. The court also held that the conditions in the sub-lease, including the condition that the petitioner obtain specific prior concurrence of the 1st respondent regarding the sale and rates of barytes, were not arbitrary or violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The court further held that a writ petition was not maintainable to challenge the conditions in the sub-lease, as the sub-lease was a purely contractual arrangement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, and did not involve any exercise of statutory power by the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the sub-lease executed by the 1st respondent in favor of the petitioner was invalid for not being in Form O as prescribed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960? 2. Whether the conditions in the sub-lease, including the condition that the petitioner obtain specific prior concurrence of the 1st respondent regarding the sale and rates of barytes, were arbitrary or violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 3. Whether a writ petition was maintainable to challenge the conditions in the sub-lease.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The consent of the State Government under Rule 37 (1) (a) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is sufficient to validate a sub-lease, even if it is not in the prescribed form. 2. Conditions in a sub-lease, including a condition that the sub-lessee obtain specific prior concurrence of the lessee regarding the sale and rates of minerals, are not arbitrary or violative of the sub-lessee's rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, if they are agreed upon by the parties. 3. A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the conditions in a sub-lease, as a sub-lease is a purely contractual arrangement between the parties and does not involve any exercise of statutory power by the State.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, subject to a direction that the 1st respondent obtain transport permits for the petitioner within a reasonable time after the petitioner applies for them and complies with the necessary conditions.
( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 387 of 1986 is filed by Sri Y. S. Raja Reddy, a mine owner, praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent, viz. , the Andra Pradesh Mining corporation Limited, insisting that the applications for transport permits for the barytes ore from the mines of the petitioner should be routed through them, is contrary to Rules, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India, and to issue a consequential direction to allow the petitioner to apply directly to the 2nd respondent viz. , Assistant Director of mines and Geology, for transport permits after paying royalty, taxes cess, etc. to the Government. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner also sought interim directions. Our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. initially gave some interim direction directing that transport permits for 5000 metric tonnes shall be issued within four days from the date of the order. Then the Government of Andhra Pradesh got mmpleaded as 3rd respondent and also filed a petition to vacate the said interim direction. Jeevan Reddy, J. after hearing both sides at length, felt that under the circumstances of the case same directions should be given to enable the mining operations to go on regularly and accordingly gave some directions regarding the transport permits price and the application of the Labour Laws. As against these directions, the Government filed writ appeal No. 136 of 1986. The main writ petition W. P. 387 of 1986) also is posted along with the writ appeal and both have come up for the hearing before us. It can, therefore, be seen that the orders in the writ petition will cover the writ appeal also. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE necessary facts may be stated. In 1974 the Government of andhra Pradesh by a notification issued in G. O. Ms. No, 27, dated 7-1-1974 declared that Barytes ore bearing areas in the villages of Mangampet and anantarajupet in Cuddapah District except those that were already leased out, were reserved for exploration in public sector. The Andhra Pradesh mining Corporation applied for grant of Mining lease in respect of 22. 7990 hectares at Mangampet village and the Government of Andhra. Pradesh granted a mining lease in favour of the Corporation (the 1st respondent) under their proceedings in G. O. Ms. No. 151, dated 10-2-1975. The petitioner was the Pattadar of an extent of 17. 4969 hectares of the said land. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Government, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules and obtained stay. At that stage an understanding was reached between the petitioner, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the 1st respondent corporation and it was agreed that the petitioner should withdraw the revison petition and that the 1st respondent should sub-lease its rights and liabilities under the mining lease granted to it by the Government, in so far as it related to 3. 102 hectares of land situate in S. No. 132/1 to 132/9 and s. No. 134/1 to 134/6 for exploration of Barytes ore by the petitioner and that the petitioner should give up his surface rights in the rest of the land i. e. , 14. 3767 hectares. On 16-6-1975 the petitioner gave letter of consent agreeing to give up his surface rights in respect of 14. 3767 hectares. The government of Andhra Pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 215, dated 22-4-1980 gave their consent under Rule 37 (1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to grant sub-lease. Again by G. O. Ms. No. 455 dated 19-7-1972, the Government of Andhra Pradesh partially modified the earlier notification and permitted the 1 st respondent for sub-lease in the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the 1st respondent executed a sub-lease on 20-7-1982 in favour of the petitioner. The said sub-lease contains several clauses.
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
