B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE proceedings on the file of the first respondent contained in Memo. Nos. 699, 700, 702 and 705/m. 11-2/99-2 dated 14- 07-1999 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of prospecting licence for limestone over the areas in kesavapalli, Alugumallipadu villages in dachepalli Mandal, Sankarapuram village in Karampudi Mandal and Gogullapadu village in Gurajala Mandal of Guntur district, is impugned in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the said proceedings void and also for consequential direction, directing respondent Nos. I to 3 to grant prospecting licence of mining lease in respect of the said areas to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement and other allied products. It claims to have the potential of manufacturing cement to the tune of 3300 Tons per day i. e. , I. I Million Tons per annum. It became sick sometime in the year 1990. The Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (for short "bifr") provided rehabilitation package under the provisions of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner claims to have revived production from December 1994, as per the rehabilitation provided by the BIFR.

( 4 ) ). Be that as it may, the petitioner has applied for a prospecting licence in respect of Limestone (major mineral) over an extent of 2011. 77 acres in Kesavapalli and alugumallipadu village in Dachepalli mandal, Sankarapuram village in karampudi Mandal and Gogulapadu village in Gurajala Mandal of Guntur district vide its application dated 19-10-1994, addressed to the first respondent. The petitioner is enjoying the mining lease in respect of certain other areas from which the petitioner is already extracting mineral. It is, however, stated that the petitioner has not been able to extract high grade limestone from the existing mining leases and in the circumstances, the petitioner is stated to be in search of high grade limestone mineral and accordingly certain investigations and searches were conducted by the petitioner and in that process found high grade limestone in the said villages and accordingly submitted its application dated 19-10-1994 before the first respondent- government for granting prospecting licence. The prospecting licence application of the petitioner dated 19-10-1994 is a bunch of applications consisting of four individual applications.

( 5 ) ). The first respondent herein had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 29-04-1999 requiring the petitioner to show- cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as to why the application for grant of prospecting licence for limestone should not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner-Company has already been recommended for five renewal of mining lease applications, three mining lease applications and one mining lease application was under process; altogether covering a total extent of 1108. 79 acres (448. 72 Hectares ). In the said show - cause notice, itself, the reserves contained in the said area are expected to be sufficient, even taking into consideration the proposed expansion to be made by the petitioner-Company. It may be noticed that the first respondent issued in all four such show-cause notices in respect of the four applications filed by the petitioner. The contents of the show-cause notices are similar and the explanation submitted by the petitioner is also one and the same to all those show cause notices. Therefore, each one of the show-cause notices and the explanation submitted by the petitioner thereto need not be referred to. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the said show-cause notices on 17-05-1999, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is not having adequate limestone reserves covered by the existing mining leases and, therefore, there is no justifiable cause to reject the prospect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document