COMMON ORDER:

W.P. No.3708 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of 1st respondent in Memo No.6224/M.1(1)/2018 dated 02.01.2020 dismissing the revision application of the petitioner and upholding the lease determination order in D.Dis.7082/R5-1/2014 dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Director of Mines & Geology / 2ndrespondent.

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) The Quartz lease over an extent of 35.101 Hect. in Sy.No.2117 of Taluparal Village, Pileru Mandal, Chittoor District originally stood in the name of Annam Reddy Udhika Priya, legal heir of late A.Kishore Kumar Reddy for a period of 20 years upto 28.05.2021. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 24.04.2010, the State Government has transferred the lease for the unexpired period in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been conducting mining operations thereon.

(b) While so, the petitioner fell sick and besides, some family disputes arose. Therefore, he was constrained to go to his place Chennai for treatment and subsequently returned and approached 3rd respondent for payment of dead rent when he was informed that his mining lease was determined by 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 23.03.2017 on the ground of non-payment of dead rent and non-conducting mining operations etc. The petitioner filed revision under Rule 35-A of the A.P.

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the APMMC Rules, 1966’) clearly submitting therein the reasons for his absence and expressing his willingness to clear all the mineral revenue dues. However, the revision was dismissed on 03.11.2017 with an untenable ground that the petitioner was disinterested in operating mines and he conducted breaches of the lease conditions. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41963/2017 which was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2017 setting aside the revisional order with a direction to dispose the revision in accordance with the procedure established by law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Pursuant to the above order, the 1st respondent passed order in Memo No.317/M1(1)/2018-2 dated 24.05.2018 upholding the dismissal order of the Director of Mines & Geology. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and no notice of hearing was given to him. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.19809/2018. The said writ petition was allowed on 29.06.2018 with a direction to hear the revision. The 1strespondent passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2010 dismissing the revision application on the ground that the applicant has always been avoiding payment of mineral revenue and conveniently litigating from time to time to block the area. The order of the revisional authority is a non-speaking one as no reasons were assigned for dismissing the revision. Quarry lease was determined on the ground of non-payment of dead rent. However, no order was passed under Rule 12(5)(h)(ii)(a) & (b) of the APMMC Rules, 1966 declaring as lapsed. If it is lapsed, the Director can exercise powers to set aside the same on an application.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition as follows:

(a) Originally the Quartz lease over an extent of 35.101 Hect. in Sy.No.2117 of Talapula Village was granted for 20 years in favour of one A.Kishore Kumar Reddy as the lessee expired on 13.02.2008 and hence, on the request of his daughter Annam Reddy Udhika Priya, she was declared as legal heir of the lessee. Subsequently the lease was transferred in favour of petitioner for the unexpired period vide G.O.Ms.No.40, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 24.04.2010. While so, the Assistant Geologist has inspected the mining lease area on 22.07.2014 and submitted report stating that the subject mine was not working since 2010 and arrears were not paid and reports were not submitted so also environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, F