Writ petition seeking directions to decide an appeal against refusal of a colour granite quarry lease. Both sides agreed the matter was covered by an earlier order of the same Court; the writ petition was closed in terms of that order without costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER J
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR B
’x *
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO ^
iar^
WRIT PETITION NO: 45101 OF 2017
Between:
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction, more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent not passing the orders in the appeal dt. 23-10-2017 againsttheorderof3rd Respondent vide process No. 46261/R4 -1/2010 dt.18-03-2015 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent pass necessary orders considering petitioners application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an
extent of 4 hectors in Sy No.6 of Eswarapuram Village, Potturu Mandal, ‘ Ghittoor District.
•• »■
■X a tA NOU OF 2017 (■..
u
/• ^/Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent pass necessary orders considering petitioners application for grant of quarry lease for colour granite over an extent of 4 hectors in Sy No.6 of Eswarapuram Village, Potturu Mandal Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A P REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following: ORDER
V
APHC011043042017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 45101/2017
Between:
Am Babu ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.A P REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
( “ to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one u in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof 'v the 7®' Respondent not passing the orders in the appeal dt.23.10.2017 against the order of 3^^ Respondent vide process NO.46261/R4-1/2010, dt.18.03.2015 and consequently direct the 7®' Respondent pass necessary orders considering my application for grant of quarrylease for colour granite over an extent of 4 hectors in Sy.No.6of Eswarapuram Village, Potturu Mandal, Chittoor District ”
2
- Mr.A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents are present.
- Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedAssistantGovernment Pleader for Mines and Geology that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in WritPetitionNo.32327of2015 dated 19.10.2024.
- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
- Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.32327 of 2015, dated 19.10.2024, to this Order.
^ BABU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANf RE^TRAR To. SE OFFICER
CCS to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP), High Court of
Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.45101 of 2017
ANDfyJgjjs
X 2 ^ MAR 2025 mT
O Col
^ . Current beciion . ^
CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
APHC010689542015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND. AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 32327/2015
Between:
Chuttu Ashok Kumar ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY ,
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
“ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction deciaring the actionofthe1st respondent in not granting Mining Lease for SiiicaSandto an extent of 4.977 Hectares (Ac.12-30 cents) in S.No.1of Addepaiii viiiage, Chiiiakuru mandai as iilegai andarbitrary and consequentiy direct the f®' respondent to considerthe application submitted by the petitioner for grant ofMining Lease for Siiica Sand over an extent of 4.977 Hectares (Ac.12-30 cents) in S.No.1 of Addepaiii village, Chiiiakuru mandai as per the recommendations of 2"'' respondentin accordance with the provisions of M.M.(D&R) Act, 1957and M.C. Rules, 1960 ”
2
■ 3
3
- Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, noneappearedforthe petitioner.
Geology, for the respondents.
- On hearing, learned Government Pleader submits that,duetochanging policy of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.03.2022, the petitionercannotclaimany relief in this writ petition. He further submits that, no person has any fundamental right to claim that he' should be granted mining lease or prospecting license or permitted reconnaissance operation in any land belonging to the Government. J
learned Government Pleader has placed 6. To support his contention reliance on a decision reported in State of Rajasthan and others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat'', wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras17and18, as follows:
“17. It is far too settled Wat there is no right vestedoveran application made which is pending seeking lease ofaGovernment land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any typeoflandover which the Government has a vested right and regulatorycontrol. In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso factodoesnot create any right. The power of the Government to amend,beingan independent one, pending applications do not come intheway.For a right to be vested there has to be a statutory recognition. Such a right has to accrue and any decision will have to createtheresultant injury. When a decision is taken by a competent authorityinpublic interest by evolving a better process such as auction,aright, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a Government landevaporates
1 2023 see Online sc 898
4-
on Its own An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a statf ^ accordingiy by a SC2T05 V. Hirtd: stone & Others, (1981) 2 with li learned counsel In connection with the consideration of applications for renewal was that comVfntonTi": 'll f 8-0 had not nrZi f I ^ ^ ^ contended-that even applications for cIT w 1 tits'date of GO Ms No 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-0 had not come into force The submission was that it was not open to the government to keen applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal l^'cnnJ^fhV^'-y to reflect them on the basis of Rull that the applications had been made S., .hi/. „ app//caf/ons Ts/ioo/d be dealt ^asonabie time, it cannot on that account be said thatthn*^ tf>spo..^tf Of/n a reasnnabte time rlr^t^ ^.applicant for a lease with a riahtcfn h^,,^ ■ ^posed of on the basis of thejvl^in force at the nf in. making or the application. No one has a vested right tn tha r,r..— can diaim a vested irnhf f.fh^ in application for the grant or renewal of a /ease dealt with in a particular wav, bvaDolvingoarticularnrovision<i in'ThZ absence of any vested rights In anynno -I ^ ^ , an aoDlication for a leaco /lac SI f. ! according tn the rules in fnrTT^ tfisposa/ of the aoplication Hi^soite the fact thTt ^Mreis a long delay since the making of the aoDlication. therefore, unable to accent the ^bmissir^n nf ih. counsel that applications_Jgri_the grant of renewal nf dealt with as if Rule 8- C did not eylst » •
miZn ill nM;ha™s fundamental right in d ZdV f20 duTZrVT^''^Lid. V. Union or inaia, (2012) 11 SCC 1 may shed some light,
"No fundamental right is mining i.nriH , l^^^JPP^I'^nts have applied for mining leases in a land belonging to the Government of Jharkhand (erstwhile Bihar) and It IS for iron ore which is a mineral included in Schedule I to the 1957 Act in respect of which no mining lease can be gran^d without the pnor approval of the Central Government. It aoL withZTJyHi!, governmentGovernment exceptor in anyundermines_Jn_anythe 1957 Act andlandthebelonainn1960 R„l^^tn th. fundanrenfa/ right to claim that he shoiJJd~b^ granted mining lease or prospecting licence or oermiHoH reconnaissance operation in .n. Lrr following 213, para 6) albeit in the context of minor mineral, ... . —§• - The public interest which induced Parliament to f^f the declaration contained In Section 2 ... hnrTfi^nj^^iiTJ^ ^the paramount considerationJiTMmatters concerning th. regulation of mines and the develoomeritof mim^nip;
5
He went on to sav: (Hind Stone case [(1981) 2 SCO 2051. see p. 217, para 10)
- Learned Government Pleader on relying upon the above decision, submits that “mere filing of an application for granting mining lease does not create any right to the applicant”. Therefore, learned Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
- As per of the G.O.Ms-.No. 14, dated 14.03.2022, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 15 and 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the rules regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of minor minerals in the State of Andhra Pradesh by conducting E-Auctions with the rules and the same were notified with effect from 15.03.2022.
- On considering the above submissions of learned GovernmentPleader and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in view of the changing policyoftheGovernmentfor granting lease by way of E-Auction; nothing survives in the writ petition for any further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed.
6
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shallbenoorderasto;
costs.
- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, ifany, shall stand closed.
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
BMS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his pending application for grant of a colour granite quarry lease decided despite the Government's changed e-auction policy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan and others v. Sharwan Kumar KumawatRelied on
State of Rajasthan and others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 898 · Who else cites this
Hind Stone & Others v. StateReferred
Hind Stone & Others, (1981) 2 SCC 205 · Who else cites this
State of Jharkhand v. Union of IndiaReferred
State of Jharkhand v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
AM Babu
State of AP, represented by its Principal Secretary, Ind and Corn Department
The Secretary, Ind and Corn Department (Mines.II)
The Director, Department of Mines and Geology
The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor District
The Collector, Chittoor District
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
