Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 25
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
M.V. Siva Prasad
Versus
The Government Of A.P., Industrial And Commerce (SPIU & Sand) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep., By Its Secretary & Three Others.
WRIT PETITION Nos.9706 & 27650 of 2008; 7777 & 8733, 10175, 10976, 11610, 13755, 14596, 17281, & 20226 of 2009.
Date of Judgment : 25-01-2010
For the Petitioner:M/S. Sanjeev Kumar, M.V. Pratap Reddy, C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, Ramakrishna Pativada, K. Chidambaram, Advocates. For the Respondents:G.P. For Mines & Geology for Industries & Commerce, for Revenue, N. Shoba, M/S. Manohar Reddy, M. Govind Reddy, C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Sanjeev Kumar, Ramakrishna Pritivada, Advocates.
Headnote:MINES AND MINERALS—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 15—A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules—1966, (as amended) —Rules 9-K(3), 9-L and 9-P—Grant of lease for quarry of sand—Extension of term of lease—In the absence of a vested right, an application for grant of or renewal of lease has necessarily to be dealt with in terms of prevalent rules—Power of State Government to pass orders is limited to extent it has been conferred power to do so under 1966 Rules— Impugned orders not referable to Rule 9-K (3) of 1966 Rules—Since power of Government to issue orders/clarifications is limited to the extent provided under Rule 9-K (3), impugned orders granting extension of lease are ultra vires the 1966 Rules and cannot be allowed to stand—Petition allowed. (Paras 21, 24, 28, 35, 36)
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
1. As common questions of law arise for consideration, these batch of writ petitions were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order. It is however convenient to briefly note the facts in each of the writ petitions.
W.P. No.9706 of 2008: 2. The memo of the 1st respondent dated 18.04.2008 granting extension of lease of 72 days in favour of the 3rd respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 04.10.2007, issued confirmation orders in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of Lankapalli Sand Reach, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District for a period of six months upto 31.03.2008 and directed execution of the lease deed within one month. The 3rd respondent failed to execute the lease deed within time. The Government issued an order dated 07.12.2007 condoning the delay in execution of the lease deed subject to the condition that the bidder agreed to execute the lease document with retrospective effect from 10.10.2007. In his representation, the 3rd respondent requested for extension of 100 days for the non-operation period when Government was in the process of issuing orders condoning the delay. The Government favourably considered the 4th respondent’s request for extension of lease for a period of 72 days from the date the order was passed.
W.P. No.7777 of 2009:
3. The memo of the State Government dated 08.04.2009, granting extension of 87 days in respect of reach No.7 of Penna River at Murnlumudi village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District in favour of the 4th respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition. The impugned memo records that the 4th respondent had requested for extension of lease for the 87 days non-operation period; the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology in his report had opined that the 4th respondent should not be allowed to extract sand and that the lessee had misrepresented facts in his representation seeking extension of lease only to hamper the forthcoming auction process. In his report the Zonal Director, Mines & Geology, Ongole observed that the subject reach was confirmed in the public auction; an agreement was executed on 30.05.2007; the first year lease expired on 30.03.2008; the second year lease was in force upto 31.03.2009 and failure of the Assistant Director to issue despatch permits without valid reason had resulted in the lessee not being able to operate the lease for a period of 87 days from 30.08.2008 to 25.11.2008. The Director of Mines & Geology requested the Government to consider the representation of the 4th respondent under Rule 9-K(3) of the A.P. Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the 1966 Rules), as he was denied despatch permits. In exercise of its powers under Section 9-K(3) the Government permitted the 4th respondent to operate the lease for a further period of 87 days.
W.P. No.10175 of 2009:
4. The memo of the 1st respondent dated 13.05.2009, whereby the 4th respondent was permitted to carry out sand quarry operations for the 317 days non-operation period in respect of reach No.4 at Godavarru, Duggirala Mandal of Guntur District, is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. The 4th respondent was granted lease for a period of one year with effect from 29.10.2003. Relying on the petition filed by Sri Thota Rambabu, lessee of reach No.3, the District Panchayat Officer vide letter dated 10.02.2004 stopped quarrying of sand. The District Level Sand Committee requested the Executive Engineer for his report in the matter. The District Panchayat Officer, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2004, allowed a new ramp and temporarily stopped the existing ramp. This order was stayed by the Government on 03.08.2004. The District Panchayat Officer, vide letter dated 04.08.2004, again stopped quarrying operations till receipt of the Government orders regarding the ramp point. The 4th respondent was permitted to quarry sand from 24.0
