Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Sri Anjaneya Mining Company - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.18745 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Constitution of India, 1950- Grant of mining lease for Quartz mineral over an extent - Abutting to his mining lands - Dumping the raw materials and overburden of mud - Petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease for Quartz mineral over an extent of Ac.12.00 cents (4.85 hectares) in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village which was processed and later vide G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 11.02.2009 lease was granted for 20 years - Petitioner company was accorded permission to commence mining operations for period from 25.04.2009 to 24.04.2029 and the petitioner has been conducting mining operations - petitioner made an application for grant of lease for Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 which is abutting to his mining lands for the purpose of dumping raw materials and overburden of mud - respondent conducted inspection and made a recommendation for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents of land.
Finding of the Court : Crux of the issue is whether the petitioner’s application for grant of lease for dumping raw mineral and mud in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 has to be considered or whether the applications of respondents 6 & 7 for grant of mining lease in respect of the same land has to be considered 2nd respondent has already directed the respondents 3 & 5 to conduct a joint inspection and submit report for taking further action in the matter direction can be given to 2nd respondent to obtain the report from the respondents 3 & 5 and consider the facts in the said report and in turn express his views on application of the petitioner on one hand and mining lease applications of respondents 6 & 7 on the other and forward his views to the 5th respondent for passing necessary orders.
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.
ORDER :
The petitioner claiming to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner company prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the No Objection Certificates vide proceedings in R.C.A.363/2019 and R.C.A.364/2019 dated 06.05.2019 issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to accord mining lease in favour of respondents 6 & 7 over an extent of Ac.7.40 cents and Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:
(b) Later the petitioner made an application for grant of lease for Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 which is abutting to his mining lands for the purpose of dumping the raw materials and overburden of mud. The 4th respondent vide proceedings in ROC.B.531/2008 dated 26.11.2008 forwarded his application to 2nd respondent for taking necessary action. Thereafter, on the persuasion of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent conducted inspection and made a recommendation for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 vide his proceedings in R.C.I.3644/2016 dated 29.12.2016. Thereafter, 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 25.10.2017 directed the respondents 3 & 5 to conduct a joint inspection and to find out whether there are minerals in the lands proposed to be leased and submit a report with a location map. The respondents 3 & 5 thus have seized the matter and they are yet to conduct joint survey.
(c) In the meanwhile, the respondents 6 & 7 made separate applications in February 2019 for granting lease of land to an extent of Ac.7.40 cents and Ac.4.94 cents respectively for quarry operations, which land overlaps with the land applied by the petitioner. Curiously, the 4th respondent without proper enquiry issued No Objection Certificates to respondents 6 & 7 vide proceedings No.R.C.A.363/2019 & R.C.A.364/2019 dated 06.05.2019. Basing on the said NOC, the respondents 6 & 7 made applications dated 07.02.2019 to 5th respondent for grant of mining lease in their favour. On coming to know this fact, the petitioner made a representation dated 25.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent to cancel the NOC dated 06.05.2019 issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7. In response thereof, the 2nd respondent directed the respondents 3 & 4 to conduct an inspection and submit a report in that regard. Accordingly, the 4th respondent submitted a report dated 14.10.2019 stating that the earlier Tahsildar of Podalakur Mandal has issued No Objection Certificates in favour of respondents 6 & 7 without knowing the fact that the petitioner had already applied for the same land way back in the year 2008 and thus requested the 2nd respondent to take further action in the matter. The 3rd respondent also reiterated the same facts in his proceedings dated 23.10.2019 and requested the 2nd respondent to take necessary action in the matter. That is how the 2nd respondent has seized the matter.
(d) As per the information of petitioner, the 7th respondent addressed a letter dated 25.10.2019 to the 5th respondent requesting to cancel his application vide File No.521/P/2019 dated 07.02.2019. However, the 6th respondent is actively pursuing the 5th respondent to grant mining lease in his favour for Ac.7.40 cents in respect of his File No.520/P/2019 dated 07.02.2019. The petitioner submits that as per the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for sho
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
