Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
M/s Sree Kalyana Rama Company – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 25823 of 2022
Decided On : 07-02-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH MINOR MINERAL RULES: R.12(5)(h)(xi), R.12(5)(h)(xi)(i)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.6(b), S.6(c), S.6(e)
Headnote
(B) Contractual Rights - Letter of Intent can constitute a binding contract if the intention is clear from its terms - Subsequent amendments to rules do not apply retroactively to undermine rights accrued under the letter of intent. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Initial lease granted in 1959 was renewed multiple times. The petitioner sought renewal for 20 years as per a Letter of Intent issued in 2017. However, the impugned order limited renewal to only 10 years based on a rule amendment. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to renewal for 20 years according to the Letter of Intent, and the amendment to the rules does not affect rights that had already accrued. (Paras 18, 19)
Issues: The legality of reducing the lease renewal period from 20 to 10 years and the applicability of amendments affecting contract rights. (Paras 5, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: Rights accrued from a letter of intent prior to an amendment are saved; lease renewals should not exceed previous entitlements based on older rules. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside, and renewal for 20 years directed.
For the Appellant : K. Chidambaram
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on miner lease renewals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. hearing details of the case. (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments around lease renewal duration. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 5. legal decisions cited to support claims. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. court observations on procedural compliance. (Para 9 , 13) |
| 7. lease renewal application process. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 8. terms of the letter of intent. (Para 15) |
| 9. analysis of retrospective application of amendments. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 10. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 19) |
| 11. closing miscellaneous applications. (Para 20) |
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“……to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No 12697/D8/2017 dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Respondent No 2 to the extent of renewing the quarry lease of the petitioner for a period of 10 years only as against in principle grant of renewal of 20 yrs vide proceedings 12697/R31/2017 dated 10.05.2017, as illegal and arbitrary and provisions of APMMC Rules 1966 r/w Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to renew lease for period of 20 yrs as mentioned in proceedings 12697/R31/2017, dated 10.05.2017 of Respondent No 2 and pass….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that, initially, the petitioner company was granted mining lease for Mica in the year 1959 in respect of an extent of Ac.362.07 cents in survey Nos. 65, 66, 68 and 71 of Kalichedu village, Rapur taluk, Nellore district, and subsequently the lease was transferred in favour of the petitioner in the year 1961 vide G.O.Ms.No.1467. The lease period was renewed for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.142 in the year 1976 and a part of the leased area was transferred to another company in the year 1983 vide G.O.Ms.No.290. The remaining extent of lease was renewed in the year 1999 for a further period of 20 years, vide G.O.Ms.No.316 for a further period of 20 years. It is stated that, the petitioner submitted application dated 28.09.2016 for renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years as per the Rules in force by then, in respect of an extent of Ac.287.70 cents in survey No.153, 160P, 161, 165 of Kalichedu village, Sydapuram mandal, Nellore district. Pursuant to the said application, respondent No.3 submitted proposals recommending for grant of 3rdrenewal for a further period of 20 years, and thereupon, respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide No.12697/R3-1/2017, dated 10.05.2017, according in principle approval for renewal of the lease period in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 20 years with effect from 09.12.2017, subject to submission of approved mining plan along with Environmental Clearance (EC) from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Consents for Establishment (CoE) from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board(APPCB). Accordingly, the Mining plan of the petitioner was approved on 29.6.2017 and the time for submission of EC was extended vide letters dated 06.11.2018 and 24.04.2019. Thereafter, the EC was issued by MoEF on 01.07.2020 and CoE was issued by the APPCB on 12.08.2020. However, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide No.12697/D8/2017, dated 31.12.2020, to the extent of renewing the lease for a period of ten years only, as against the in principle grant of renewal for twenty years vide proceedings dated 10.05.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying the material averments made in the Writ Petition, inter alia, contended that, the petitioner company was granted mining lease for Mica in the year 1959 for an extent of Ac 362.07 cents in Sy No.65, 66,68 and 71 of Kalichedu Village, Rapur Taluk, Nellore District and the said lease was subsequently transferred in favour of the petitioner in the year 1961. The renewal of the said lease for a per
