2022 Supreme(AP) 1163

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
R.Raghunandan Rao, J.
Federation of Minor Minerals Industry – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19482 of 2022
Decided On : 30-09-2022

The Granite Rules, 1999 prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 in the event of repugnancy.

Headnote:

MINES AND MINERALS - GRANITE - LEASE - AUCTION - RELEVANCE OF GRANITE RULES, 1999 - RELEVANCE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1996 - RELEVANCE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MINOR MINERAL AUCTION RULES, 2022 - REPUGNANCY - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought a mining lease for granite over 3 hectares of land in Sy.No.1 of Addukouda Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District. The Central Government had framed the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (Granite Rules) for the conservation and systematic exploitation of granite resources in India. The Andhra Pradesh Government had also issued the Andhra Pradesh Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 (Minor Mineral Concession Rules) and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022. The petitioners contended that the Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 and certain amendments to the Minor Mineral Concession Rules were repugnant to the Granite Rules and sought a declaration that these rules did not apply to granite.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Granite Rules prevailed over the Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the Auction Rules in the event of repugnancy. The court further held that the Minor Mineral Concession Rules would continue to apply to granite quarry leases to the extent they were not repugnant or inconsistent with the Granite Rules. The court found that the Auction Rules were not repugnant to the Granite Rules as the Granite Rules did not stipulate the manner in which the mining lease was to be granted. The court also found that Rule 12(5)(d) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which made all applications received prior to the commencement of the rules ineligible, was not repugnant to the Granite Rules as there was no provision in the Granite Rules stipulating that applications for grant of quarry leases could not be closed in this manner. However, the court held that Rule 12(5)(h)(XI)(i) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which restricted the period of the lease to a maximum period of 20 years and restricted the extension of the leases up to 31/3/2023, was inconsistent with Rule 6 of the Granite Rules and would not be applicable to quarry leases for granite.

Issues: 1. Whether the Granite Rules, 1999 prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 in the event of repugnancy? 2. Whether the Minor Mineral Concession Rules continue to apply to granite quarry leases to the extent they are not repugnant or inconsistent with the Granite Rules? 3. Whether the Auction Rules are repugnant to the Granite Rules? 4. Whether Rule 12(5)(d) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which makes all applications received prior to the commencement of the rules ineligible, is repugnant to the Granite Rules? 5. Whether Rule 12(5)(h)(XI)(i) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which restricts the period of the lease to a maximum period of 20 years and restricts the extension of the leases up to 31/3/2023, is inconsistent with Rule 6 of the Granite Rules?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Granite Rules prevail over the Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the Auction Rules in the event of repugnancy. 2. The Minor Mineral Concession Rules continue to apply to granite quarry leases to the extent they are not repugnant or inconsistent with the Granite Rules. 3. The Auction Rules are not repugnant to the Granite Rules as the Granite Rules do not stipulate the manner in which the mining lease is to be granted. 4. Rule 12(5)(d) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which makes all applications received prior to the commencement of the rules ineligible, is not repugnant to the Granite Rules as there is no provision in the Granite Rules stipulating that applications for grant of quarry leases could not be closed in this manner. 5. Rule 12(5)(h)(XI)(i) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which restricts the period of the lease to a maximum period of 20 years and restricts the extension of the leases up to 31/3/2023, is inconsistent with Rule 6 of the Granite Rules and would not be applicable to quarry leases for granite.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.