Restrictions on mining operations must be supported by formal prohibitory orders; lack thereof negates grounds for appeal.

The Court made the following common order:

Heard Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The W.P.No.23933 of 2022 is filed challenging the action of the respondents in restricting the mining area of the petitioner by 20 hectares out of the originally leased extent of 60.704 hectares in Sy.No.137 of V.R.Gudem Village, Pondur Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3. Out of the total extent of Ac.475.95 cents in Sy.No.137, the petitioner was granted a mining lease over an extent of 60.704 hectares, equivalent to 150 acres. By proceedings dated 04.04.2005, approval was accorded for the grant of a mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the mining plan was duly approved. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 07.04.2005, the Government granted a mining lease in favour of the petitioner for quarrying quartzite, a minor mineral. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued consequential proceedings authorizing the petitioner to commence mining operations. The lease was valid upto 12.04.2025.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in 2018, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology inspected the leased area and orally directed the petitioner not to carry on the mining operations, on the ground that Sy.No.33 Lolugu Village, Kondur Mandal of an adjacent village was allegedly overlapping with the leased area in Sy.No.137 of V.R.Gudem. The petitioner was instructed not to operate the mine until further orders. However, no written order was issued communicating the alleged overlap or formally suspending operations. No subsequent order was passed clarifying or resolving the issue.

5. While so, the respondents proposed to process the application of the 6^th respondent for grant of a quarry lease for quartzite and have decided to grant quarry lease in favour of the 6^th respondent and directed her to obtain requisite statutory clearances, including consent from the Pollution Control Board and Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, within a period of one year for consideration of regular grant.

6. The petitioner contends that the 6^th respondent is a partner, along with her husband, in two partnership firms, namely M/s. Nagagayatri Stone Crushers and M/s. Sriram Stone Crusher, which was involved in the illegal excavation of road metal in Survey Nos.137 of V.R.Gudem and 33 of Lolugu village, and that proceedings are pending against the said two firms. It is further contended that demand notices were issued for illegal mining. Despite the same, the respondents permitted the 6^th respondent to carry on mining operations in respect of the area covered under the petitioner’s subsisting lease. Further, without passing any order cancelling or determining the petitioner’s lease, the Court orally restrained the petitioner from conducting mining operations.

7. It is contended that the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 21.05.2019, calling upon the petitioner to explain why action should not be taken for non-payment of dead rent and for failure to conduct mining operations.

8. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondents issued such a notice only to issue a Letter of Intent (LoI) in favour of the unofficial respondent No.6. Despite the submissions