Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 848
Andhra Pradesh High Court
TAPAL TIMMAPPA AND SONS, BELLARY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08/31/2007
Advocates Appeared :
A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY, B.NARAYAN REDDY, C.SUDESH ANAND, GOVARDHAN VENU, K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, N.V.RUGHAVA REDDY, S.V.BHATT
Headnote:
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 59 (1) (a) and (ii) – Notification – Mining lease deed – Challenged – Petitioner is grand son of original lessee - Tapal Thimmappa -who was initially granted a mining lease for iron ore over an area of 231 acres in sy. Nos. 1 and 2 of Malapanagudi Village, d. Hirehal Mandal, Ananthapur District – Pursuant to the said order a lease deed as executed in favour of Tapal Thimmappa for a period of 20 years who, having invested huge amounts, made the area fit for mining operations and extracted Iron ore and Red Oxide during the period of lease – Prior to expiry of lease, made an application for renewal and was permitted by the concerned Collector to carry on mining operations on payment of royalty – Held, Order refusing the application of the petitioner in W. P. was in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being in contravention of the provisions of rule 26 (1) of the Rules. (4) The notification, on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed is defective and not in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the MM (Dandr) Act – Rest of contentions raised by the petitioners including the mala fides alleged against the Director of Department of mines and Geology, need no consideration in these writ petitions and it is open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings for redressal of their grievance, if any – Writ petitions allowed.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER, on 12. 7. 2004 a notification was published under Rule 59 (1) (a) and (ii) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules') declaring that the said 231 acres of land situated in Sy. Nos. l and 2 of malapanagudi Village was available for regrant of a mining lease after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification. In pursuance thereof, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Limited (9th respondent in W. P. Nos. 14116 and 14818 of 2007) applied for grant of mining lease on 28. 8. 2004 over an extent of 93. 52 hectares (231 acres ). The petitioner in W. P. Nos. 9723 and 14818 of 2007 - M/s. Tapal thimmappa and Sons, a Partnership Firm made an application on 15. 1. 2005 for grant of mining lease over an area of 40. 47 hectares. The petitioner in W. P. No. 14116 of 2007 also made an application on 19. 4. 2006 (according to the respondents on 19. 4. 2007) for grant of mining lease over the notified area. Having processed the applications, the Government of A. P. , by order dated 10. 11. 2005, provisionally proposed to grant a mining lease in favour of the 9th respondent over an extent of 68. 52 hectares for a period of 20 years subject to prior approval of the Government of India under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, dated 10. 11. 2005, W. P. No. 9723 of 2007 was filed by M/s. Tapal Thimmappa and Sons along with four others.
( 4 ) THIS Court ordered Rule Nisi on 1. 5. 2007 and while the writ petition was coming up for the counter-affidavit of the respondents, the Government of A. P. , on the basis of the prior approval of the government of India, dated 25. 5. 2007, passed orders granting a mining lease in favour of the 9th respondent vide G. O. Ms. No. 151, industries and Commerce (M-III)Department, dated 18. 6. 2007. On the same day, by a separate order, the application of m/s. Tapal Thimmappa and Sons for grant of mining lease was rejected.
( 5 ) CHALLENGING the said order dated 18. 6. 2007, M/s. Tapal Thimmappa and Sons filed W. P. No. 14818 of 2007.
( 6 ) THE order dated 18. 6. 2007, granting a mining lease in favour of the 9th respondent has also been challenged in W. P. No. 14116 of 2007 by one Tapal Syam prasad contending that, while keeping his application dated 19. 4. 2007 pending, the decision taken to grant the mining lease in favour of the 9th respondent was in gross violation of the procedure prescribed under section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'mm (Dandr) Act' ).
( 7 ) IN W. P. No. 9723 of 2007 though rule Nisi was ordered on 1. 5. 2007 no counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents.
( 8 ) IN W. P. No. 14116 of 2007 and w. P. No. 14818 of 2007 the learned government Pleader for Mines and Geology accepted notice for the Government of andhra Pradesh and filed a detailed counter-affidavit in W. P. No. 14116 of 2007 at the admission stage itself on behalf of the 1 st respondent. The said counter-affidavit has been adopted in W. P. No. 14818 of 2007 also by the 1 st respondent - Government of a. P.
( 9 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 9- M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private limited Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, Advocate, entered appearance in W. P. Nos. 14116 and 14818 of 2007 at the admission stage itself and addressed elaborate arguments raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and also on merits.
( 10 ) SRI K. Raghavacharyulu filed his vakalat for M/s. Obulapuram Mining company Private Limited (respondent No. 4)in W. P. No. 9723 of 2007 as well, however no counter-affidavit has been filed.
( 11 ) SIMILARLY for respondent No. 10 (A. P. Mineral Developmen
