ORDER:

The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.6857/M.1(2)/2018-2 to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay all mineral revenue arrears and determining the lease passed by 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.proc.No.1758/R1-1/2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of Constitution of India r/w the A.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the APMMC Rules, 1966’) and consequentially set aside the same.

2. Petitioner’s case pithily is thus:

Petitioner holds quarry lease for colour granite in an extent of 7 Hectares in Sy.No.73 of Melisathiwada Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 20 years. The Director of Mines and Geology/2nd respondent vide D.Dis.proc.No.1758/R1-1/2018, dated 08.06.2018, determined the quarry lease of the petitioner on the ground that the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Srikakulam/3rd respondent submitted proposal for determination after inspection of the quarry lease and after noting certain lapses on the part of the lessee as follows:

(a) The lessee was not operating the quarry lease and there were no traces of quarrying activity as on the date of inspection.

(b) The lessee failed to maintain boundary pillars in violation of Rule 28(2) and 31(vi) of APMMC Rules, 1966.

(c) The lessee has not obtained the dispatch permits since

11.03.2013 in contravention of APMMC Rules, 1966.

The Director in his order mentioned that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for the explanation and the explanation submitted was found to be not productive and not supported by any documents showing the reasons for non-operation of the quarry for more than two years since 11.03.2013 and the reply was only a routine one and thus not tenable. For all the aforesaid grounds the 2nd respondent determined the lease vide D.Dis. Proceedings No.1758/R1-1/2018 dated 08.06.2018.

The petitioner preferred revision before 1st respondent and the said authority after calling for remarks from 2nd and 3rd respondents and after affording personal hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order vide Memo No.6857/M.1(2)/2018-2 dated 09.11.2020 as follows:

“6. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision application of Sri S. Koteswara Reddy subject to payment of all Mineral Revenue Arrears as per MRA and set-a-side the D.Dis.Proc.No.1758/R1-1-2018, dated 08.06.2018 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam.

7. Accordingly the Revision application is disposed off under Rule 35-A Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam shall take further necessary action in the matter.”

Though satisfied with the impugned order allowing the revision application and setting aside the lease determination order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner, however aggrieved by the condition in the order directing the petitioner to pay all Mineral revenue arrears, filed the instant writ petition.

3. The respondents filed counter opposing the writ petition contending thus:

The petitioner is a transferee lessee from M/s Sri Sai Granites for the unexpired period of lease till 15.10.2029. The 3rd respondent submitted proposals to 2nd respondent vide Lr.No.3112/Q/2007 dated 06.03.2018 basing on the inspection conducted by Maha Check Vigilance Teams which have noticed certain violations of the APMMC Rules, 1966 committed by the petitioner such as non operation of the lease since 11.03.2013, non-erection of boundary pillars and failing to take dispatch permits since 11.03.2013. On a show-cause notice issued by 2nd respondent, the petitioner vide letter dated 08.05.2018 submitted reply with untenable reasons. He submitted that there is an approach road between the main road and quarry site and in that respect there was some issue and petitioner negotiated with surrounding land owners