IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, JJ.
Federation of Minor Minerals Industry (femm) and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of AP and Others – Respondents
W.P.Nos.19459,14827, 14886, 15023, 16392, 17073, 18504, 18509, 18526, 18535, 18538, 21359, 21361, 21362, 23304, 24520, 31569, 37577, 38643, 38659,17328, 17347, 17358, 17520, 18036, 18406, 18595, 18612, 18647, 18824, 18831, 18834, 20148, 21272, 21419, 21590, 21599, 22118, 39743, 40525, 40529 of 2022, 2836, 2528 of 2023, 2691, 5924 of 2024
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 3(e), 15 - A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 - Amendments challenged - Petitioners contended that amendments allowing auction for minor minerals exceed the powers under the 1957 Act and render pending applications ineligible, constituting retrospective legislation - Court found that the State has the authority to amend rules under Section 15 and that the amendments are not retrospective as they do not affect vested rights. (Paras 10, 18, 24)
(B) Vested Rights - The court held that mere application does not confer a vested right to grant of lease, and the discretion of the State Government to grant or refuse leases remains intact. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged amendments to the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which shifted the grant of quarry leases from a first-come-first-serve basis to an auction system, rendering pending applications ineligible.
Findings of Court:
The amendments are within the powers of the State under the 1957 Act and do not create retrospective effects on pending applications.
Issues: Whether the amendments to the rules exceed the powers granted under the 1957 Act and whether they affect vested rights of applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State has the authority to amend the rules for granting leases and that pending applications do not confer vested rights.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)
Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General appearing for the State and learned G.P. for Mines and Geology appearing for the other respondents.
2. The exploitation of mineral resources, in India, including development and regulation of mines and minerals, is regulated by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the 1957 Act’). For the purpose of this Act, minerals have been segregated into minerals, notified minerals and minor minerals. Minor minerals have been defined under Section 3(e) in the following manner.
“3(e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral;”
3. Section 15 of the 1957 Act empowers the State Government to make Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. The State of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15(1) of the 1957 Act, had made the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the 1966 Rules’) issued under G.O.Ms.No.1172, Industries (B-I), dated 04.09.1967. These Rules have been amended from time to time. In the present batch of cases, amendments, made to these Rules by G.O.Ms.No.13, Industries and Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 14.03.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.14, Industries and Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 14.03.2022, are under Challenge.
4. G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 14.03.2022, amended Rules 4, 7-A, 9, 10 to 12, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 28, 31 and 33 of the Rules. G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 14.03.2022, amended Rule 12(2) and 12(5)(d) of the Rules, apart from making the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022.
5. The regulatory mechanism, under the rules, prior to these amendments, was as follows:
A. Minor Minerals, for purposes of grant of quarry leases, were slotted in two categories. The first category consisted of Sand, Granite, Marble and 31 minerals which had been declared as minor minerals, by the central government, on 10/02/2015. The second category were all the other minor minerals.
B. The grant of leases for the second category, under Rule 9 (i), would be by the concerned deputy director, while the grant of lease for Sand, would be under Rule 9C-1; all other leases, in the first category, under rule 12 (5) [a] (i), would be by the Director of Mines and Geology.
C. Rule 9 (i) stipulated the procedure for grant of quarry lease of a minor minerals, in the second category. Rule 12 set out the procedure for grant of leases for the first category. The applications were divided into four categories. The first category was the applications from the Government departments, Corporations and companies. The second category was the applications of labor, contract and cooperative societies, the third category was applications of unemployed persons who possess recognized qualifications and the fourth category was the applications by any of the persons, who do not fall into the above three categories. The applications of the first three categories were to be given priority, above that of the fourth category. In the present case, we are concerned with fourth category. The 5th proviso to Rule 12(2) stated that when more than one application is received under Category-4, preference is to be given to the applications, according to the date of their receipt, unless the director, for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefers the application of a subsequent applicant. Rule 12 (5) (b), stipulated that the applications, for grant of lease, of the minor minerals, in the second category would be disposed of in order of receipt of applications, with discretion being conferred on the director to grant a lease to an application which is later in point of ti
The State has the authority to amend rules for granting mineral leases under the 1957 Act, and such amendments do not create retrospective effects on pending applications.
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.
Point of law: State Government have not so far issued any notification in terms of Section 17A, the Industrial Policy–2007 of the Kerala State Government does not have the effect of making a valid re....
(1) Lease of Government Land – There is no right vested over application made which is pending seeking lease of a Government land or over minerals beneath soil in any type of land over which Governme....
The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.
The court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.