Dismissed

Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021WP/6489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of authorities to consider a 2006 mining lease application. The Court held that the petitioner, having filed a fresh application in 2016 under amended rules applicable to the mineral, could not seek consideration of the earlier ineligible application. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6489 of 2018

¶4

Rebala Ravi Shankar Reddy, S/o. Late Madhusudhan Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.4, Raghava Apartments, Takkemitta, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and six others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O.Manoher Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP for Mines & Geology Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 : ------

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶13

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶14

“… to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not considering the application of the petitioner dated 14.08.2006 for grant of quarry lease for silica over an extent of Ac.27.30 cents in Sy.No.570 and

¶15

Page 2 of 11

¶16

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶17

571 of Momidi Village, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of section 10(A)(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of lease and pass such other order or orders....”

¶18

In the affidavit it was contended that petitioner made application on 14.08.2006 to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for grant of mining lease over an extent of Ac.2730 cents in Sy.Nos.570 and 571 of Momidi Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The Mandal Revenue Officer (for short „MRO‟) submitted report on 25.09.2006 stating that the applied area is Government land classified as Anandeenam. After the report was received, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology along with the surveyor inspected the area on 05.10.2006 and got the land surveyed. The report was forwarded to the Director of Mines and Geology with a recommendation to grant mining lease for a period of 20 years subject to disposal of earlier PL application and subject to satisfaction of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short „the Act‟) and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short „the Rules‟).

¶19

Page 3 of 11

¶20

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶21

Though the recommendation was made on 12.10.2006, no further orders were passed by the authorities.

¶22

On receipt of the proposals from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the Director of Mines and Geology returned the proposals vide memo No.29120/R3-3/2006 dated 07.03.2013 to re-examine the proposals as per the Rules. On receipt of memo from the Director of Mines and Geology, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology addressed letter to MRO as to whether the subject area falls within the SEZ or not. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology submitted report to the Director of Mines and Geology, on 15.12.2014 along with necessary documents and requested the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner.

¶23

As on the date of the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease, Silica was a Major Mineral, as such the provisions of the Act would apply. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 14.03.2016. Though the application submitted by the petitioner was approved by the concerned authority and forwarded to the 2^nd respondent

¶24

Page 4 of 11

¶25

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶26

for issuance of mining lease, the officials directed the petitioner to submit another application and accordingly, petitioner submitted application on 15.10.2016. Thereafter show-cause notice was issued.

¶27

The power to entertain the applications after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 14.03.2016 would arise after the applications submitted prior to the amended Act are disposed of. The period of two years is provided under the Act for disposal of the applications. The amended Act came into force on 12.01.2015 and the period of two years would expire by 11.01.2017. Before expiry of two years period, the respondents ought not to have entertained fresh applications. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed.

¶28

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Respondent No.5 deposed the counter affidavit. It was contended, inter-alia, that petitioner filed application on 14.08.2006 for grant of mining lease for Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.27-30 cents in Sy.Nos.570 and 571 of Momidi Village for a period of 20 years. The Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal vide letter Rc(B).No.253/2006 dated

¶29

Page 5 of 11

¶30

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶31

25.09.2006 furnished the report of classification. After the survey and demarcation of the technical staff, proposals were submitted on 12.10.2006 to the 2^nd respondent. The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam vide letter memo No.29120/R3-3/2006 dated 07.03.2013, while returning the proposals dated 12.10.2006 requested the 5^th respondent to re-examine the proposals as per the Rules invoked. The 5^th respondent vide letter dated 10.06.2013 requested the Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal to verify whether the subject area falls in SEZ or not. The Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal vide letter dated 08.11.2014 submitted the proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam. The same is pending consideration.

¶32

Be that as it may, the Government of India promulgated Act 10 of 2015, making amendment by inserting Section 10-A to 10-C to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with effect from 12.01.2015. By virtue of the enactment, all the pending applications were declared as ineligible. The application filed by the petitioner dated 14.08.2006 is pending and the same was declared as ineligible since no letter of intent was issued by the

¶33

Page 6 of 11

¶34

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶35

Government. Petitioner‟s application does not come under the category of Section 10-A(2)(a).

¶36

By issuing G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 14.03.2016, powers were delegated to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam to take further action for grant of lease in respect of newly declared 31 minerals as Minor Minerals. Keeping in view of the amendments, the petitioner made application on 15.10.2016 for grant of mining lease for Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.27-30 cents in Sy.Nos.570 and 571 for a period of 20 years as per the amended Rule 12(3)(iii)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The application made by the petitioner is dated 15.10.2016. After receipt of fresh No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal, proposals were submitted to the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for grant of quarry lease. In fact, three applicants made applications in respect of same area. M/s. Sai Krupa Mines and Minerals made application on 25.09.2016. G.Ravichandra made application on 20.06.2016 and the petitioner made application on 15.10.2016. The proposals were submitted to the Director of Mines and

¶37

Page 7 of 11

¶38

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶39

Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for grant of lease in favour of 1^st applicant i.e. M/s. Sai Krupa Mines & Minerals who made application on 29.05.2016. In fact, show-cause notice dated 30.08.2017 was issued to the petitioner as per APMMC Rules, 1966. Without submitting explanation petitioner filed writ petition and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the counter affidavit.

¶42

As seen from the pleadings and material papers, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner making application on 14.08.2006 for grant of mining lease of Silica Sand over an extent of Ac.27-30 cents in Sy.Nos.570 and 571 of Mumudi Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. After

¶43

Page 8 of 11

¶44

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶45

conducting survey, proposals were submitted on 12.10.2006 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada. However, the Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam by letter dated 07.03.2013 returned the proposals dated 12.10.2006 and sought certain clarification. The Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal by letter dated 08.11.2014 submitted proposals.

¶46

Government of India inserted Section 10-A to 10-C to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with effect from 12.01.2015. Silica Sand, Major mineral, by virtue of amendment Act, was declared as Minor Mineral. The application made by the petitioner, by virtue of the amendment was declared as ineligible. Later, petitioner made application on 15.10.2016 as per APMMC Rules, 1966. Petitioner having making application as per new rules, now cannot contend to consider his application as per unamended provisions.

¶47

Prior to petitioner‟s application, M/s. Sai Krupa Mines and Minerals made application on 29.05.2016 and Guduru Ravichandra made application on 20.06.2016. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology submitted proposals to

¶48

Page 9 of 11

¶49

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶50

Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam for grant of quarry lease in favour of M/s. Sai Krupa Mines and Minerals. In fact, as seen from the counter affidavit, show-cause notice dated 30.08.2017 was issued to the petitioner. However, petitioner without submitting explanation filed the above writ petition.

¶51

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority ought to have considered the application made by the petitioner on 14.08.2006, will not persuade this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner himself made application for grant of lease as per provisions amended in the year 2016. Having made application as per the amended provisions and after receipt of notice, petitioner filed the writ petition. Once the petitioner made application as per amened provision, he cannot be allowed to contend to consider his application made on earlier occasions. In fact, by virtue of amended provision petitioner‟s application was declared as ineligible.

¶52

In view of the discussion made supra , this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

Page 10 of 11

¶54

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall

¶56

be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶58

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶59

Date: 19.10.2023 KAS

¶60

Page 11 of 11

¶61

SRS, J W.P.No.6489 of 2018

¶62

180

¶63

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶64

WRIT PETITION No.6489 of 2018

¶65

Date: 19.10.2023 KAS

Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghava Project Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perabattula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodi Mahesh Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Jafar Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Robin Vikas K. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nammi Gouri Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagaraju Buddiga Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh