Disposed

M/s Lok Cements Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024WP/15313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing grant of mining lease allegedly denied arbitrarily. Court found petitioner had not submitted mandatory Environmental Clearance and Conservation Plan under S.O. 1533. Court directed petitioner to comply, after which respondents to consider the proposal. Petition disposed upon issuing this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direct petitioning to submit Environmental Clearance and Conservation Plan; and respondents to consider proposal for grant of mining lease expeditiously if requirements met.

M/s Lok Cements Limited Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

APHC010102112017

[3310]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 15313 OF 2017

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s Lok Cements Limited

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.N SHOBA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER:-

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶23

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 1 and 2 herein in not passing orders granting mining lease in over an extent of 5.75 KM in various survey numbers in Palamalla and Chinganaduluru Village of Kadapa District in terms of the Final Orders of the Revisional Authority in Final Order No. 552/10, dated 30.11.2010 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and

¶24

¶25

in violation of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and pass such other orders….”

¶26

Heard Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines and Geology for the respondents.

¶27

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the M/s Lok Housing and Constructions Limited has applied for limestone in an extent of 24.00 square kilometres and also 1.94 square kilometers in Kalamala and Chinnadandlur Village, Kadapa District on 25.01.1995 and 14.07.1995. The area is adjacent to proposed factory and in continuation of earlier Prospecting License Application applied. During pendency of the processing of applications, advance permission was granted to M/s Lok Housing and Constructions Limited for pre-prospecting licence and issued order vide G.O.Ms.No.3921, dated 11.11.1988 to an extent of 15.68 square kilometres in an undisputed area. M/s Lok Housing and Constructions Limited promoted the company M/s Lok Cements Limited incorporated on 16.02.1995 for undertaking cement related business and exploration work, project and pre-project work etc., Therefore, the said 15.68 Square Kilometres prospecting license granted to M/s Lok Housing and Constructions Limited was transferred in favour of petitioner by way of transfer deed dated 18.05.2000. During pendency of operation of the prospecting license, petitioner submitted application for mining lease on 19.06.2003 for reduced extent of 5.74 square kilometres and the Government issued Memo dated 05.01.2005 proposed to grant mining lease in favour of petitioner subject to

¶28

¶29

submission of approved mining plan. The petitioner has complied with the condition as per Memo. In the meantime found that there is no further area to recommend in favour of the petitioner after consideration in favour of M/s India Cements Limited and that issued show cause notice. On receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted explanation 24.12.2007. In spite of detailed explanation submitted, the government has rejected and passed order. Questioning the same, the petitioner has preferred revision to Government of India on various grounds and the same was set aside. The petitioner made several representations to the State Government, but the same is not considered for passing grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner and no orders are passed till yet, though the petitioner is eligible for grant of mining lease. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed to question the action of the respondents in not granting license in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

Per contra, the 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner has filed revision before the Government of India against the rejection order dated 06.10.2008 of the State Government issued vide Memo dated 11.01.2013 stating that the Government of India has set aside the rejection order of the State Government and passed the final order dated 30.11.2010 and requested this office to submit the proposals after rectifying the breaches on the part of the petitioner company. The 3^rd respondent after rectifying the pointed out breaches has again resubmitted the proposals vide

¶31

¶32

letter dated 28.11.2013 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad/ Vijayawada for taking further action, which is under process. Subsequently, no further correspondences or communication from the petitioner have been received till date. It is further contended that the Government of India in its final order dated 28.11.2006 has stated that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 02.12.2005, hence upheld the order of the Government of A.P and rejected the revision application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.1813 of 2007, which was allowed setting aside the order Memo dated 02.12.2005 of the 2^nd respondent and final order No.31 of 2006, dated 28.11.2006 of the 1^st respondent and matter is remanded back to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to all the stake holders.

¶33

It is further contended that the Government of India has amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (in short ‘the Act’)and issued Notification dated 27.03.2015. As per Section 10(A)(2)(C) of the Act where the Central Government has communicated previous approval as required under sub Section (1) of Section 5 for grant of mining lease, or if a letter of intent has been issued by the State Government to grant a mining lease, before commencement of the Act, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the previous approval of the letter of intent within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

¶35

Perused the record.

¶36

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Revision before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority passed an order dated 30.11.2010 in Order No. 552 of 2010 that the petitioner has given detailed explanation, the State Government reiterated only to stand for rejection and that the revision petitioner has complied with the requirement of the State Government and thereafter, there was nothing more was left to be stated by the revision petitioner. The rejection was held to be bad and the same was done without any application of mind and is required to be set aside, which was communicated to the Statement. The petitioner has also made several representations. After several representations made by the petitioner, the Director of Mines and Geology vide Memo dated 11.01.2013 requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to examine the matter in the light of final order No. 552 of 2010, dated 13.11.2010. After examine the report of the concerned officials, the petitioner was directed to submit the Environmental Clearance etc., for enabling him to submit the proposals to Government to pass orders granting mining lease.

¶37

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection was set aside holding that it was without any application of mind. The Revisional Order did not speak of any rectifying of breaches on the part of the petitioner. A vague allegation in Para 10 is contrary to the final order passed by the Revisional Authority. Further, contended that the petitioner has

¶38

¶39

submitted all material as requested by the Director of Mines and Geology and drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Notification issued by the Government of India vide S.O. 27(E), dated 04.01.2017 as Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Removal of Difficulties Order 2017, which reads as follows:-

¶40

“Environmental Clearance notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (c) of sub-sec (2) of Sec.10A of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act 2015 (10 of 2015), it is clarified that where the condition of obtaining of Environmental Clearance has not been complied with by the application on or before 11.01.2017, but the other conditions as specified in previous approval are letter of intent have been fulfilled, the applications shall be considered under that consequent and mining lease shall be granted by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Notification issued under the Environment (Protect) Act, 1986 provided that no mineral activity shall commence unless and until the applicant obtain Environmental Clearance as alleged under the Environmental (Protection)Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder”.

¶41

In view of the same, the petitioner is eligible to obtain mining lease

¶42

from the respondents. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to consider the same and allow the writ petition.

¶43

However, the 3^rd respondent after rectifying the pointed out breaches has again submitted a proposal vide letter dated 28.11.2013 to the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad/ Vijayawada for taking further action in the matter. Subsequently vide letter dated 17.04.2015 while reminded the issue of Memo dated 05.01.2005 has requested to submit the E.C issued by Mo EF and CFE issued by APPCB so as to take further action on the mining lease application. In view of non submission of required

¶44

¶45

statutory compliances as required under S.O.No.1533 issued by the Government of India for prior possession of EC and CFE by the petitioner and as the same is not submitted by the petitioner, no orders have been passed on the petitioner’s application for grant of Mining lease as contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶46

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to submit the requirements as required under S.O.No.1533 issued by the Government of India for prior possession of EC and CFE by the petitioner to the respondents. On such submission, the respondents are directed to examine the same and grant license in favour of sthe petitioner, if it is otherwise in order as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

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

¶49

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶50

Date: 10.12.2024

¶51

M/s Lok Cements Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Lok Cements Limited 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revuri Kanakadurga Vs the State of Ap

Jatawath Srinu Naik S/o. Keerya Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vepada Varahalamma (Died) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Noorulla Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs Union of India