In these letters patent appeals, the High Court dismissed challenges against the transfer of quarry leases from the appellant to a respondent. The court held that the transfer was legal under a substituted rule requiring director approval, which was obtained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010619982023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
[3446]
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.1266 & 1267 of 2023
Between:
CTP Granites and Exports, Rep by its Sole Proprietor Selvamanickam, S/o. S.Manikkam, Sole Proprietor CTP Granite and Exports, R/o. Room No.3, Police Welfare Complex, Opposite HDFC Bank, Mittoor, Chittoor District.
...Appellant in both appeals AND
...Respondents in both appeals
Counsel for the Appellant :Sri M. Yogesh Kanna along with Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Mines and Geology
Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri K.S. Naveen
Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral)
These two Letters Patent appeals are preferred against the judgments and orders, dated 06.07.2023, respectively passed in W.P.Nos.3323 & 3303 of 2023.
appellant herein and respondent No.4 and was registered on 29.11.2018 with the Registrar of Firms. Thereafter, it appears that an application was moved, dated 19.05.2022, for transferring the leasehold rights in favour of respondent No.4.
For purposes of reference, Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) is
reproduced hereunder:
“(viii) The prospecting licenses and quarry leases granted for the purpose of non-captive consumption are not transferrable.”
appears to have dismissed both the writ petitions primarily on the ground that there was suppression of material facts inasmuch as the petitioner had not reflected in the petition regarding the factum of having issued a legal notice on 6th of July, 2022 and its subsequent withdrawal on 16th of July, 2022. Not only this, a notarized affidavit, dated 12th of July, 2022, which was subsequently brought on the writ Court records was also stated to have been suppressed by the petitioner – appellant herein and in those circumstances, the writ petitions came to be dismissed.
“The holder of a Lease, with the prior written approval of the Director of Mines & Geology, may be permitted to transfer such Lease in favour of the existing mineral based industry or to a new mineral based industry, which shall be established within 2 years from the date of execution of transfer lease deed. If the Industry is not established within two (2) years, no further extension of time shall be granted and the lease shall be cancelled..”
8. Be that as it may, mining rights issued in favour of
the petitioner could have been transferred but with the prior approval of the Director of Mines and Geology, in terms of the aforementioned Rule. From the record, it can be seen that such an approval was in fact granted by the Director of Mines and Geology, vide his order, dated 21.06.2022, based upon which the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, on 29.06.2022, issued the orders transferring the mining rights from the petitioner - appellant to respondent No.4.
by the official respondents in transferring the mining rights to respondent No.4. However, the controversy as to whether the application for transfer was at all fraudulent or not is a matter which we do not wish to enter into and it is left open to the appellant to agitate or challenge the said issue before an appropriate forum.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Vjl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of mining leasehold rights to a third party was illegal in view of Rule 12(5)(h)(viii) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
Whether suppression of material facts regarding the withdrawal of a legal notice warranted dismissal of the writ petitions.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
CTP Granites and Exports, Rep by its Sole Proprietor Selvamanickam
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce
The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh
The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa
K Malarvizhi
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
