Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.JAGANADHA RAO
Anupama Minerals - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12-20-84
FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980 - SECTION 2 - RULES 4, 5, 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1966 - RULE 9 - RENEWAL OF MINING LEASE - PROCEDURE - APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - OPINION OF CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS - REJECTION OF RENEWAL APPLICATION - REASONS - NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING OF PETITIONERS - CONSERVATION OF FORESTS - REAFFORESTATION - SCOPE OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted mining leases for limestone in a reserve forest. The leases expired in 1980 and 1983. They applied for renewal of the leases. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology rejected the applications on the ground that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 prohibited the grant of leases in reserve forests. A Division Bench of the High Court held that the Act did not prohibit the grant of leases but required prior approval of the Central Government. The Deputy Director then sent the applications to the Central Government, which refused to grant approval. The Deputy Director then rejected the applications again. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their applications.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the procedure followed by the respondents in dealing with the petitioners' applications for renewal was contrary to the M.M.C. Rules and the directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court also held that the refusal of the Central Government to accord prior approval and the refusal of the Deputy Director to grant renewal were vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Court further held that the Central Government passed orders refusing to accord prior approval without even hearing the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the provisions of the F.C. Act and the Rules had not been followed in this matter, and that irrelevant circumstances were taken into consideration, which vitiated the decision of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure followed by the respondents in dealing with the petitioners' applications for renewal was contrary to the M.M.C. Rules and the directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court? 2. Whether the refusal of the Central Government to accord prior approval and the refusal of the Deputy Director to grant renewal were vitiated by total non-application of mind? 3. Whether the Central Government passed orders refusing to accord prior approval without even hearing the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the provisions of the F.C. Act and the Rules had not been followed in this matter, and that irrelevant circumstances were taken into consideration, which vitiated the decision of the Central Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The procedure followed by the respondents in dealing with the petitioners' applications for renewal was contrary to the M.M.C. Rules and the directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology was not allowed to deal with the applications for renewal, after the Bench judgment was delivered, nor was he allowed to verify and examine whether the applications are in conformity with the A.P. M.M.C. Rules and whether the leases should be renewed or not. 2. The refusal of the Central Government to accord prior approval and the refusal of the Deputy Director to grant renewal were vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Deputy Director did not scrutinise the application from the standpoint of R. 3 (xiv) nor did he ever form his opinion, whether the renewals should or should not be granted. 3. The Central Government passed orders refusing to accord prior approval without even hearing the petitioners, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners cannot claim to be heard, as of right, before the Central Government takes a decision in the matter. Even if it takes a decision to refuse to accord approval for the grant of lease of renewal, it is not bound to hear the party affected. 4. The provisions of the F.C. Act and the Rules had not been followed in this matter, and that irrelevant circumstances were taken into consideration, which vitiated the decision of the Central Government. The Central Government has to take a decision on the relevant material placed before it i.e., the information contained in the pro forma prescribed by R. 4 the material accompanying it and the opinion of the Advisory Committee, which is in the nature of a specialist Committee.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ appeals and writ petitions and directed the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology to take up the applications for renewal filed by the petitioners and examine them in accordance with law and the observations contained in the judgment. The Court also directed the Deputy Director to address the Central Government for its approval under S. 2 of the F.C. Act, 1980, in accordance with the F.C. Rules, and in accordance with the observations in the judgment.
( 1 ) (A) The land in survey No. 7 of Gandlepalli village, situated with in Gandlepalli Reserve Forest, contains limestone (Slabs), which is a minor mineral. Several persons applied for mining leases, in respect of the said land. The grant of leases with respect to minor minerals is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1966 framed by the State Government under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957. The appropriate authority to grant the mining leases under these rules is the Assistant Director or the Deputy Director, as the case may be. The competent authority granted four leases in respect of Ac. 25-00, Ac. 35-00, Ac. 10-00 and Ac. 15-00 respectively in survey No. 7 in favour of M/s. Anupama Minerals M/s. Anupama Minerals, D. Vital Goud and Mallaiah Goud respectively under his orders dated 11-12-1975, 10-4-1975, 10-4-1975 and 11-12-1975 respectively, for a period of five years. Two more leases were granted on 3-7-1978 in respect of Ac. 16-00 and Ac. 20-00 in favour of Sri Mohd. Rahmutulla Khan and M/s Kalings Shabad Stone Co-operative labour Contract Society, Indanoor respectively for a period of five years. The proviso to R. 9 of the A. P. M. M. C. Rules, requires that the application for grant of a lease in respect of a reserved forest land, can be disposed of only after consultation with the Divisional or the District Forest Officer concerned. The Divisional Forest Officer was accordingly consulted, before granting the above leases; he expressed no objection to the grant of leases.
( 2 ) WITH a view to avoid repetition and confusion, it would be sufficient if we state the facts in the Writ Petition No. 9935/1984 wherein the petition is M/s. Anupama Minerals. The leases in its favour was granted on 10-4-1975, and was to expire on 9-4-1980. According to the M. M. C. Rules, a lessee is entitled to two renewals subject to certain conditions and criteria mentioned in R. 31 (XIV ). The petitioner applied for renewal of his lease on 8-1-1980. No orders were passed on the application for a period of 90 days, with the result, that the petitioners application stood rejected as provided by R. 13 (2 ). Against this deemed rejection, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the State Government, which directed the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, by its order dated 30-4-1980, to entertain and consider the renewal applications, in accordance with Rules.
( 3 ) AT this stage, i. e. , after the period of lease had expired, the Forest Department issued a notice to the petitioner, on 23-5-1980, to stop quarrying operations, stating that since the petitioners lease period was expired, he must stop his quarrying operations. (Similar notices were issued to the other lessee also, whose lease too had expired) Against the said notices of the Forest Department, two Writ Petitions 2479 and 2535 of 1980 were filed in this Court. They were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 23-9-1980; the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology was directed to consider the renewal applications filed by the petitioner, according to law and pass orders thereon within six weeks. Pending the passing of the orders by the Deputy Director, the lessees were allowed to continue the quarrying operations.
( 4 ) ON 25-10-1980 the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. (Initially, an Ordinance was issued on that date; subsequently the Act was made with retrospective effect from the date of the issuance of the Ordinance.) The applications for renewal filed by the said two petitioners were taken up for consideration, on 5-2-1981, by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, and rejected on the sole ground that the F. C. Act 1980 prohibits the grant of leases or renewal of leases within the reserve forest. These orders were again challenged by another batch of Writ Petitions (W. P. No. 679 of 1981 and batch) by the petitioner, which came up for hearing before a Division Bench
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
