IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
M. Lakshminarayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.31179 of 2017
Decided on : 20-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges cancellation of lease. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interim directions allow operations pending lease status. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding lease violations presented. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court considers interim orders and lease expiration. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed with no costs. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, by Proceedings No.429/M1/2000, dated 27.01.2001 the 4th respondent issued granting of first renewal of mining lease for Quartz over an extent of Acs.15.00 cents in Sy.No.1/8 of Relli Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District for a period of 20 years subject to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and conditions laid down in Form-K prescribed under M.C. Rules, 1960 and additional conditions stipulated to the annexure appended to the grant order. Subsequently on 18.07.2017 the 4th respondent also stated that, he has already sent proposals for cancellation of Quarry lease to the District Collector and therefore, the 4th respondent has stated that, he has cancelled the lease without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Questioning the action of the 4th respondent in cancelling the lease without issuing notice to the petitioner and violating principles of natural justice, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2017, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction in WPMP No.38852 of 2017, reads as under :
There shall be interim direction as prayed for unless and until the lease of the petitioner is cancelled or modified. It is further made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law."
4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by 3rd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, this respondent has submitted proposals vide Lr.No.429/M1/2000 dated 23.08.2017 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam to cancel the Quarry lease held by Sri M. Lakshminarayana for Quartz over an extent of 15.00 Acres in Sy.No.1/8 of Relli Village, Kot Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Regarding construction, it was recommended by the Tahsildar, Kothavalasa in view of establishment of Tribal University; also the lessee violated certain breaches as mentioned above and also subject to satisfaction of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966. Geology, Ibrahimpatnam. The orders are awaited from the Director of Mines and Geology. It is stated that, the petitioner has been granted 1st renewal of Mining Lease for Quartz over an extent of 15.00 Acres in Sy.No.1/8 of Relli Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District for a further period of 20 years vide G.O. Ms. No.425, dated 03.08.2000. The 1st renewal lease deed was executed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram on 27.01.2001 for a further period of 20 years w.e.f. 12.02.2001 to 11.02.2021 and issued work orders vide Proceedings No.429/M1/2000, dated 27.01.2001. The lease will be in force upto 11.02.2021, but since 12.07.2012 the petitioner is not taking dispatch permits which indicate that there is no mining operations in the subject lands as there are no environmental clearances. Accordingly action was initiated for violation of various rules liable for conciliation of lease. In addition to the above, The Tahsildar, Kothavala
Cancellation of mining lease without notice violates principles of natural justice; the court will not intervene when administrative processes are pending.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Power under the sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of said Rules of 1994 can be exercised when a lessee commits breach of the said Rules of 1994 or of the terms and conditions incorporated in the quarrying lease
The court established that mining leases cannot be granted without determining compensation and considering the rights of existing cultivators.
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.