Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICED. RAMESH, J.
M/s.Ahobila Granites - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.29210 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2021
A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 – Rule 12 – Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Quarry Lease – Approval – Writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Government in Memo, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, granting approval in favour of the 4threspondent for overlooking the priorities and the orders of the Director of Mines and Geology in Notice in deciding in principle to grant quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 and 338 of Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and requesting to submit approved mining plan, over-looking the prior application of the petitioner dated 3.7.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to grant quarry lease on the application of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2014 for grant of quarry lease for black granite in over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323, and 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.338.
Finding of court: Court is of the opinion that Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 provides relaxation to the authorities to consider applications on the priority basis, by recording any special reasons. – The objective of exercising power under Proviso to the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 should be to aid development of minerals. – In the absence of any provision under the mining rules for grant of relaxation, said relaxation can be contended to be unsustainable in law. – A mere filing of an application for grant of lease does not confer a vested right for grant of lease. – The statutory provision of Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 is in the nature of a relaxation rule in special cases. The idea, thus, is that the objective of exercising such power should be aid the development of minerals. – 1st respondent has rightly exercised its powers under proviso to Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. – Hence, the impugned order, dated 21.05.2018 passed by the authorities on the basis of application made by the 4th respondent under captive mining is in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966. – In view of the above findings, there are no merits in the Writ Petition.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Government in Memo No.11723/M.II(1)/2017, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 21.05.2018, granting approval in favour of the 4threspondent for overlooking the priorities and the orders of the Director of Mines and Geology in Notice No.19700/R4-1/2016, dated 29.06.2018 in deciding in principle to grant quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 and 338 of Pulletipally Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and requesting to submit approved mining plan, over-looking the prior application of the petitioner dated 3.7.2014 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to grant quarry lease on the application of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2014 for grant of quarry lease for black granite in over an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323, and 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.338.
2. Heard Smt.N.Shoba, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Challa Gunarajana appearing for the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of quarry lease for black granite for an extent of 4.000 hectares in Sy.No.338 of Pulletipally village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and another application for an extent of 2.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 of the same village, to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology/3rd respondent herein, on 26.06.2014. Subsequently, on 03.07.2014 the petitioner filed fresh applications, with correct map as per Rules for an extent of 3.000 hectares in Sy.No.323 of Pulletipally village, C.K.Pally Mandal, and for 3.000 hectares in Sy.No. 338 of the said village, both the applications were received by the 3rd respondent on 04.07.2014.
4. Subsequent to the receipt of the applications, a phone call was received by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent’s office, to attend for survey and inspection scheduled to be held on 25.07.2014. On that husband of the petitioner, representing the petitioner, attended the office of the 3rd respondent on 25.07.2014, in turn the surveyor of the office of the respondent has informed that in view of the work pressure, they have postponed the schedule and the date will be intimated later. After that a notice dated 29.12.2015 was received by the petitioner on 03.01.2016, wherein the petitioner was directed to attend the office on 28.12.2015, to proceed for survey and inspection along with the officials of the concerned RDOs. The petitioner approached the office of the 3rd respondent immediately i.e., on 05.01.2016, and brought the same to the notice of the respondent. On that, 3rd respondent looked into the matter and found that there is a mistake committed by their staff with regard to the dates and the petitioner was informed that she will be given a notice after fixing a different date. Later the petitioner did not receive any notice, therefore, approached the 3rd respondent office several times for issuance of notice and for conducting survey. As no action is taken, the petitioner made a representation on 25.11.2016 to the 3rd respondent, bringing to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner was in granite industry business for the last three years in the name of M/s.Bhavitha Granites (Polishing Unit), taken on lease for eight years from P.Sulochana and also processing required machinery such as (02) Numbers, TATA Hitachi EX 200 ILC Hydraulic Excavator worth Rs.1 crore and the petitioner’s husband, B.Dasarathram Reddy also possess granite polish unit in the name of Sri Venkat Granites and he is also owning required machinery. In view of the above representation, the respondent herein has informed the petitioner that a date will be given for calling f
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
