Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Sri G Obulesu Reddy S/ o Adinarayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8332 of 2021
Decided On : 06-10-2021
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - APMMC Rules, 1966 - Rule 12 - Execution of license or lease deed - Demand Notice - Grant of Quarry Lease - Petitioner submitted application respondent for grant of quarry lease for road metal in respect of property submitted supra - Respondent submitted proposals on recommending for grant of quarry lease - After receipt of said proposals respondent issued letter of intent in favor of petitioner subject to approval of mining plan along with consent for establishment by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forests as per Environment Impact Assessment Notification and directed petitioner to submit aforesaid clearances within a period of six months.
Finding of the court :
A close perusal of this proviso would show that rejection of quarry lease application of an applicant shall be mainly due to any lapses as envisaged supra on part of applicant but not others – Therefore if a third-party may be relation of applicant fell in arrears of seignior age fee or dead rent etc to department that cannot be pitted against eligibility conditions of applicant to put on hold his application or rejecting same - Law does not empower or permit authorities to do so - On a conspectus of and law Court cannot uphold action of respondents in keeping application of petitioner in abeyance for non-payment of dues by his son - Of course they have right to keep application of petitioner in hold or reject same in stated supra if petitioner who is applicant and his son belong to Joint Hindu family and conduct their business(s) in joint name and submit income tax and business returns in same name or if they are partners of same firm or Directors of same company which firm or company owes revenue to respondent Department and suppressing same petitioner seeks mining lease in his individual name or for any other valid cause which is legally permissible.
Result : Petition is Allowed
ORDER :
Petitioner implores for writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Memo No.4054989/D11-ATP/2020, dated 30.11.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant quarry lease for road metal and stone in an extent of 3.270 hectares in Sy.No.393/P of Siddarampuram Village, B K Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District to the petitioner and pass such other orders.
2. Petitioner’s case briefly is that petitioner submitted application dated 10.05.2018 to the 4th respondent for grant of quarry lease for road metal in respect of the property submitted supra. The 4th respondent submitted proposals on 29.04.2019 recommending for grant of quarry lease. After receipt of the said proposals, the 3rd respondent issued letter of intent in favour of the petitioner subject to the approval of the mining plan along with consent for establishment by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forests as per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 and directed the petitioner to submit the aforesaid clearances within a period of six months.
On 12.08.2020 the petitioner submitted approved Mining Plan along with consent for establishment issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and requested the 3rd respondent to grant lease in his favour. The 3rd respondent seems to have returned the proposals to the 4th respondent to resubmit the proposals duly rectifying omissions with specific recommendation over the subject area. Subsequently the 4th respondent has resubmitted the proposals with the rectification stating that earlier the 4th respondent has issued demand notice to G. Deva Chandra Reddy for seigniorage fee and later the second demand notice dated 17.06.2019 was issued. The petitioner came to know that on the ground that the said G. Deva Chandra Reddy is the son of the petitioner and he allegedly owed amounts towards seigniorage fee to the department, the respondents are not considering the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease. Their act is contrary to Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short “APMMC Rules, 1966”). The application of the petitioner can be rejected under law only if he fails to attend the inspection, survey or submit valid mineral revenue clearance certificates. However, rejecting his application on the ground that petitioner’s son fell in arrears of seigniorage fee, is contrary to law. The dues of his son cannot be fastened on the petitioner and the rules do not permit such arbitrary action on the part of the authorities.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus:
(b) The office records would show that in the applied area previously quarry lease was granted by the 3rd respondent herein in favour of G. Deva Chandra Reddy vide proceedings dated 23.09.2008 and the lease would be in force up to 23.09.2018. However, the lease was determined by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.816/QL/2008, dated 17.03.2015 as th
SupremeToday
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
