( 1 ) THESE three writ Petitions involve a common question of law as to the interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act 69 of 1980 ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows:

( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6357 of 1983 was granted a mining lease for one year on 23-5-1980 over an extent of 9 acres 30 cents in tadepalli, Mangalagiri Taluk for murram and road metal. He made an application for renewal on 11-2-1981 within the specified time. The application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology by order dated 3-4-1981 on the ground that the applied area is situate in a reserve forest and as per Ordinance No. 17 of 1980 (later replaced by Act 69 of 1980) "reserved areas should not be put for a non-forest use". The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the State Government under Rule 35 of the andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The State Government by its order dated 30-4-1983 dismissed the appeal. It is the validity of these two orders that is challenged in Writ Petition.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983 and 7234 of 1985 was granted a mining lease for quarrying lime stone over an extent of 53 acres in Survey No. 120 of Madinapadu, notified as a reserve forest area in piduguralla Taluk, Guntur District. As the lease was expiring on 8-5-1982 an application for renewal was made on 30-4-1981. The application was not disposed of within two months as required by the Rules. A revision was filed before the Central Goverment under Section 30 of the Mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act against the deemed rejection. The Central Government allowed the revision on 31-5-1983 and directed the state Government to dispose of the application. As the State Government had taken no action, Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983 is filed challenging the inaction of the State Government on the application for renewat. Since the forest Department was not made a party in Writ Petition No. 6788 of 1983, writ Petition No. 7234 of 1985 was filed impleading the Forest Department also as a party respondent. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to renew the mining lease.

( 5 ) THE respondents filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioners contending that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 prohibits the grant of leases of any land situate in a reserve forest area and hence the writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) WHEN the Writ Petitions came up for hearing before our learned brother Ramaswamy, J. , it was contended that Section 2 of the Forest (Conversation) Act had no application to leases already granted as the land was broken up and it applies only to fresh leases in respect of "virgin area". In support of this contention, reliance was placed on a judgment of this court in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 dated 20-8-1985 and the decision of the Supreme. Court in State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram , A. I. R. 1985, S. C. , Page 814. The respondents contended that renewal is a fresh grant and Section 2 which aims at conservation of forests prohibits the grant of any permission to use a forest area for a non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the central Government and the petitioners have no automatic right of renewal. They relied upon an earlier Bench decision of this Court in M/s Anupama Minerals vs. Union of India, 1985 (1) A. L. T. Page 148 and a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone, A. I. R. 1981, S. C. Page 711. The learned Single Judge was of the view that having regard to the purpose and object of the Conservation Act, no lease of a reserve forest area can be granted except in accordance with Section 2 of the Act and the view of the later Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1985 requires reconsideration and referred the matter for a decision by a Full Bench.

( 7 ) THE Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 (preceded by Ordinance no. 17 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document