Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, UMA DEVI, JJ.
Bathula Krishna - Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others - Respondents
W.P. PIL No. 67 of 2018
Decided On : 31-10-2018
For the Petitioner: V.V. Satish, Learned Counsel
For the Respondents:C.V. Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel for N. Shobha, Learned Counsel, G. P. for Mines & Geology (AP), G.P. for Revenue (AP), G.P. for Forests (AP), K.K. Durga Prasad, Manohar Reddy Mallasani, Advocates
Headnote:
Constitution of India ,Art. 226 – Public Interest Litigation – To declare the action of the official respondents in allowing the 8th respondent to continue mining operations, despite his failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings as illegal and arbitrary; and to, consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to terminate the mining lease of the 8th respondent for non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent – Held, Conditions imposed by the DLSC, as reflected in the District Collector’s proceedings do not have statutory sanction and were, in any case, issued before the amendment to the 1957 Act in the year 2015 – By the time the quarry lease was granted and lease agreement was entered into stood superceded by G.O.Ms. – As the proceedings of the District Collector were not even communicated to him 8th respondent cannot be held to be bound thereby – Directions issued – Petition disposed of (Para 21,22)
Facts of the Case:
To declare the action of the official respondents in allowing the 8th respondent to continue mining operations, despite his failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings as illegal and arbitrary; and to, consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to terminate the mining lease of the 8th respondent for non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent.
Finding of Court:
Conditions imposed by the DLSC, as reflected in the District Collector’s proceedings do not have statutory sanction and were, in any case, issued before the amendment to the 1957 Act in the year 2015 – By the time the quarry lease was granted and lease agreement was entered into stood superceded by G.O.Ms. – As the proceedings of the District Collector were not even communicated to him 8th respondent cannot be held to be bound thereby – Directions issued.
Result: Petition disposed of
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that the DLSC conditions reflected in the 18.12.2014 NOC have no statutory sanction and predate amendments; they were superseded by later norms (G.O.Ms.No.107) and not communicated to the 8th respondent (!) (!) . - The case analyzes the shift from DLSC-based NOC to Tahsildar-based NOC under G.O.Ms.No.107 and the impact on binding the lease/grant terms (!) (!) . - It addresses whether conditions imposed to protect buffer zones and forest wildlife were statutory obligations or executive instructions and thus whether they could bind the lessee (!) (!) . - It considers transport of laterite through Sarugudu Reserve Forest and whether such movement can be restricted to protect wildlife, referencing environmental and public trust doctrines (!) (!) (!) . - The court directs actions under the doctrine of public trust, including environmental and forest-wildlife protection measures, and temporarily restricts mining transport through the reserve forest pending further orders (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes that the 8th respondent’s lease could proceed without the 2014 DLSC conditions due to lack of statutory sanction, but environmental/public-interest considerations may impose future restrictions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The document notes that the 8th respondent’s mining lease was granted under applicable minor mineral rules after amendments, with conditions that may not include the 2014 DLSC terms (!) (!) .
How to determine whether conditions imposed by the District Level Scrutiny Committee in the NOC proceedings dated 18.12.2014 were legally binding and statistutorily sanctioned?
What is the validity and binding effect of NOC-related conditions issued under G.O.Ms.No.2 vs. superseding G.O.Ms.No.107 in light of amendments to the Mines & Minerals Act and related rules?
What are the permissible restrictions on transporting mineral through a Reserve Forest, and do such restrictions have statutory basis or rely on executive instructions?
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, filed in public interest, a mandamus is sought to declare the action of the official respondents in allowing the 8th respondent to continue mining operations, despite his failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings dated 18.12.2014, as illegal and arbitrary; and to, consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to terminate the mining lease of the 8th respondent for non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the 4th respondent.
2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 8th respondent made an application on 18.09.2009 for grant of lease of Laterite Mining Quarry in an extent of 20.17 Hectares in Sy. No. 532 of Thorada Village, H/o Sarugudu Panchayat, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The Tehsildar, Nathavaram, inspected the land on 16.11.2009 for which the 8th respondent had applied for a mining lease, and recorded notes of inspection, inter alia, stating that it is not forest land. The Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam, in his letter addressed to the Assistant Director, District Survey & Land Records, Vishakhapatnam on 18.08.2012, clarified that the proposed leased area does not fall in the Reserve Forest areas of Narsipatnam Division, and is 2.34 km away from the nearest Sarugudu-I Reserve Forest boundary of Narsipatnam Division.
3. After the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 2 dated 02.01.2013 prescribing uniform guidelines for issue of NOC with respect to grant of mining lease and quarry lease etc, the Tahsildar, Nathavaram, inspected the land on 06.03.2013 for which 8th respondent had applied for a mining lease, and recorded his notes of inspection dated 06.03.2013, stating that there were no valuable trees on the land applied for quarry lease.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, in his letter to the District Collector, Vishakhapatnam dated 26.09.2014, approved grant of mining lease to the 8th respondent stating that the land did not fall within the forest area, there were no big trees on the land, and a road was recently laid between Saduguru and Sundarakota villages. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide letter addressed to the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology Department, Anakapalli on 18.12.2014, forwarded the proposal, for grant of mining lease to the 8th respondent, for necessary action as per G.O. Ms. No. 2, referring to the decision of the District Level Scrutiny Committee dated 24.11.2014 details of which shall be examined hereinafter.
5. The Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 was amended on 10.02.2015. Section 10(A)(1), inserted thereto, stipulated that all applications, received prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015, shall become ineligible. The Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, in its notification in G.S.R./S.O. 423 (E) dated 10.02.2015, declared certain major minerals as minor minerals. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department) issued G.O. Ms. No. 34 dated 14.03.2016 containing a list of 31 minerals that had been declared as minor minerals, for which power to grant a mining lease was delegated to the Director of Mines & Geology, A.P. “Laterite” is at serial no. 20 in this list.
6. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department) issued Memo No. 5307/M.II(1)/2016-dated 23.07.2016 directing all applications, received prior to the date of commencement of the 2015 Amendment Act, to be returned. Consequently the 8th respondent’s pending application, for lease of Laterite Mining Quarry, stood returned. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Industries & Commerce (M.II) Department) issued instructions in G.O. Ms. No. 107 dated 30.07.2016 in super cession of the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 2 dated 02.01.2013. These instructions removed the requirement of a District Level Scrutiny Committee.
7. The Director of Mines and Geology, vide Notice No.6615/R1-3/2016 dated
