G Bharath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

APHC010255892026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Q T i %U FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST * TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS: 13016 AND 14621 OF 2025

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13016 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M Shobhana Rani, W/o Ravindranath Reddy, Aged 67 years,^R/o25-2- 465, JK Colony, Andhra Kesari Nagar, SPSR Nellore District^-524004.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District

¶12

The Commissioner District of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District

¶13

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore, SPSR^{NelloreDistrict.}

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

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 an order or a direction or a writ, more oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines Geology Officer, Nellore (3RD Respondent) in not complying with Memo No. INC0413027(34)/l/202 5- D-8 of the Commissioner Director of Mines Geology (2ND Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to

¶16

consequently direct the District Mines 8i Geology Officer, Nellore to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 31,250MT of^Quartz and 93,750MT^of Feldspar totalling 1,25,000MT.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T SREEDHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR MINES^ANDGEOLOGY

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO: 14621 OF 2025

¶20

Between:

¶21

G Bharath, S/o Rarnesh Babu, Aged 53 years, R/o. KMC Campus, Goginenipuram, Gudur Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶22

...Petitioner

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District

¶25

The Commissioner and District of Mines and Geology^Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District

¶26

The District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore,^{SPSRNelloreDistrict.}

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

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 an order or a direction or a writ,^{moreoneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore (3 Respondent) in not complying with^Memo No. INC0413027(34)/2/202 5- D-8 dt 26/02/2025 of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (2 Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust,^{andunconstitutional} and to consequently direct the District Mines and Geology^{Officer,Nellore} issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 7,750MT^ofQuartzand 16,275MT of Feldspar totalling 24,025MT.

T-:--

t.

If'-/ylf

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T SREEDHAR FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP

¶33

The Court made the following Common order:

■ - - •%

r

€ APHC010255892025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

[3458]

¶39

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 13016/2025

¶43

Between:

¶44

1.M SHOBHANA RANI, W/0 RAVINDRANATH REDDY, AGED 67 YEARS, R/0 25-2-465, JK COLONY, ANDHRA KESARI NAGAR,^SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524004.

¶45

...PETITIONER

¶46

AND

¶47

1.THE STATE Oh AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,^MINES GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶48

2.THE COMMISSIONER DISTRICT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶49

3.THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, NELLORE,^SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶51

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 topleased to issue an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that inaction of the District Mines Geology Officer, Nellore (3RD Respondent) in not complying^withMemoNo. INC04-13027(34)/l/202 5- D-8 of the Commissioner Director of Mines Geology (2ND Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District Mines 8i Geology Officer, Nellore to issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner for 31,250MT of Quartz and 93,750MT of Feldspar totalling 1,25,000MT and pass s

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶53

2

¶54

1.TSREEDHAR

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶57

APHC010261062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) B

¶58

B

¶59

FRIDAY the twenty SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶62

WRIT PETITION NO: 14621/2025

¶63

Between:

¶64

AGED 53 YEARS, R/0. KMC

¶65

1 n BHARATH S/0 RAMESH BABU CAMPUS, GOGINENIPURAM, GUDUR MANDAL TlRUPATHl DISTRICT.

¶66

...PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCI^PAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶69

0 THF COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY government of ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶70

and geology officer, NELLORE, SPSR

¶71

3.THE DISTRICT MINES NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶72

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶73

with Memo No. and Geology Officer, Nellore (3 Respondent) in not complying

I

3

r

INC04-13027(34)/2/202 5- D-8 dt 26/02/2025 of the Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology (2 Respondent) as arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the District^Mines and Geology Officer, Nellore issue dispatch permits to the Petitioner^{for7,750MTofQuartz} and 16,275MT of Feldspar totalling 24,025MT and pass^such

¶78

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶79

1.TSREEDHAR

¶80

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶81

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶82

The Court made the following:

¶83

COMMON ORDER:-

¶84

Heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners^and

¶85

learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶86

Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, I deem it appropriate to decide both these cases by way of common order, by taking W.P.No.13016 of 2025 as lead petition.

¶87

The writ petitioner assails the action of the 3^^^ respondent in not passing the orders pursuant to the proceedings of the 2"'^ respondent as arbitrary and sought a consequential direction to the^{respondentstoissue} dispatch permits for 31,250 MT of Quartz and 93,750 MT^ofFeldspar.

¶88

It is contended that initially mining lease for Mica,^Quartz,and Feldspar was granted in favour of one Sri D.Narapa Reddy^{overanextentof} 49.24 acres in Sy.Nos.551, 553 and 554 of Thurupupoondia^Villageand in Sy.Nos.815 to 825 of Molakalapoondia Village of Sydapuram^MandalofSPSR Nellore District, for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.1019,^Industries& Commerce (B-ll) Department, dated 18.11.1971. The said^{leasewasinforce}

¶89

4

¶90

from 19.09.1972 to 18.09.1992. After the death of the said D.Narapa Reddy, his wife was recognized as his successor-lessee. After her death Smt. N.Usha Kiran was declared as her successor-lessee, later the petitioner was recognized as successor lessee vide proceedings^{dated01.06.2002.}

¶91

It is contended that the Government vide proceedings dated 17.04.2006 granted renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years with effect from 19.09.1992 to 19.08.2012. After its expiry in 2012, the petitioner has applied for renewal of lease in terms^{ofG.O.Ms.No.25,dated} 06.04.2023 after payment of premium amount at 10 times^{ofthedeadrent.}

¶92

Thereafter, the petitioner has applied to the 2"^ respondent seeking issuance dispatch permits for Quartz and Feldspar^{recoveredfrom} runoff mine, excavated previously in an extent of 1,25,000 MT. The 2^^ respondent vide his proceedings dated 26.02.2025 directed the S'"'* respondent to take appropriate action in terms^{oftheRule12(1)(gg)ofthe} Minerals (other than Atomic & Hydro Carbons Energy^{Minerals)Concession} Rules, 2016 (for short Rules, 2016).

¶93

The petitioner thus is aggrieved by the action of the 3"'^ respondent in not passing appropriate orders on^{therecommendationsof} the 2"^* respondent.

¶94

The 2"'^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating^thatthelease was extended vide proceedings dated 05.01.2009 for^{theperiod19.09.1992to} 18.09.2012 and further stated that after the expiry^{oftheleaseon18.09.2012.}

¶95

5

¶96

Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession^{Rules,1966were} amended vide G.O.Ms,No.25 dated 06.04.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 18.08.2023 amending Rule 12 of the Rules, 2016, inserted^{Rule125(h)(xi)(i)} of the Rules, 2016. As per the said amended provisions,^{theleaseswhich} have expired on or before 31.03.2023, the said lease^{holderswereentitledto} submit renewal applications for leases on or before 31.08.2023 along with the premium amount. In terms of the said provisions, the^{petitionerdidnot} apply for renewal of lease. However, filed the same on 06.06.2024. Since the said renewal application was not within the time granted, the proposals were submitted by the respondent for rejection of the mining^{lease,consequently} the respondent vide proceedings dated 21.02.2025 rejected^thecaseofthe petitioner for renewal of the lease.

¶97

It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for dispatch permits in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the^{Rules,2016,asperwhich} the lessee can seek permission to remove the minerals^within six calendar months from the date of expiry of the lease, after the lapse of the said period no such permission would be granted for issuance of^{dispatchpermits.}

¶98

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the 2"^^ respondent vide proceedings dated 26.02.2025 has directed the 3'^'^ respondent to pass appropriate orders in terms^{oftheRule12(1)(gg)ofthe} Rules, 2016. He further argues that initially the 3^^^{respondenthimselfhas} recommended for issuance of dispatch permits. Having^{beendirectedbya} Superior Officer and he himself having recommended^{forissuanceofdispatch}

¶99

6

¶100

permits, cannot turn around and sit over the file citing that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of dispatch permits, it is further^{contendedthatwhenthe} petitioner has applied for dispatch permits the mineral^was minor mineral therefore, the Rules, 2016 would not apply.

¶101

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.Sreedhar referring to the provisions of Section 11(2)(d) of the Rules, argues that under the guise of the amended law which came into force after the petitioner had applied for dispatch permits, the respondents cannot deny his right.

¶102

The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology argues that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. He further argues that the petitioner has misrepresented^{thefactsandhasnot} placed the facts straight before the Court. After the expiry of lease in 2012, no renewal was issued extending the lease after 18.09.2012.^{Hereliesonthe} decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel

¶103

Authority of India Limited and Others\ wherein it is^{observedthat;}

¶104

“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article^32andof the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must^come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief If there Is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

1 (2008) 12 see 481

7

36.A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary pov/er a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction^oftheCourt. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving^it. ’’ 13. The learned Government Pleader further argues that the petitioner has stated that the renewal application is pending, but, the same was rejected. The learned counsel thus argues that the petitioner is not entitled for the dispatch permits since there was no^{validleaseexecuted} in his/her favour after 2012. Between 19.09.1992 to 18.09.2012 the mineral was major mineral and no lease was renewed after 18.09.2012. Therefore, in the light of the provisions of Rule 12(gg) of Rules, 2016, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition.

¶109

Considered the submissions. 15. From the record, it appears that the lease was not^renewedafter its expiry in 2012. Only in 2023, the petitioner applied^{forrenewalunderthe} amended rule. Rule 12 5(h)(xi)(i). The same was rejected^{on22.01.2025.} The petitioner, vide his/her application dated 20.01.2025, applied to the 3^^^ respondent for the issuance of dispatch permits for Quartz and Feldspar minerals recovered from the run-of-mine material that had been previously excavated. The 3’''^ respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.02.2025 (alleged to

¶110

8

¶111

have been received by the 2'^'^ respondent on 24.02.2025), reported that the quantity of mineral available at the mine, as per their^{inspectionreport,was} quantified at 1,25,000 MT and recommended for issuance of dispatch permits. However, in view of the Notification of the^Government of India omitting the subject mineral from the list of minor^{mineral,the2"^'respondent} informed the 3rd respondent that the subject mineral^{wouldberegulatedby} the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development^{andRegulation)Act,} 1957, and the applicable Rules, thus the 2"'^ respondent directed the respondent to take appropriate action in the light^{oftheamendments.}

¶112

^

¶113

The petitioner did not choose to challenge the proceedings^ofthe 2'^^ respondent dated 26.02.2025. The petitioner does^{notappeartohaveany} grievance against the same. The effect of the said^{proceedingswouldbethat} the 3'"'^ respondent is now required to examine the^{issueafresh,inthelightof} the Notification of the Government of India dated 20.02.2025,^{categorizingthe} mineral as a major mineral, and pass orders afresh^{incompliancewithRule} 12(1)(gg) of the Rules in terms of the directions of^{the2"^*respondent.} It is relevant to extract here the Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the^Rules,2016;

¶114

Terms and conditions of a mining lease:- (1) Every^mining lease shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶115

(gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates^androyalties payable under the Act and rules made thereunder or^underthe lease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of^theleaseterm

¶116

9

¶117

months thereafter (unless the lease is or within six calendar terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any time not less than three calendar months nor more than six calendar months after such termination) take down and remove for its own mineral excavated during the currency of the benefit, all or any ore lease engines, maehinery. plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works, erections and conveniences whtch may have been erected, set up or placed by the lessee m^oruponthe leased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to the which the State Government does not desire State Government or to purchase;

¶118

Therefore, the 3- resporrdent is not bound by its eariier recommendation recommended the 2"'« respondent to issue dispatch dated 03.02.2025, which recommendation of the 3'" respondent, the permits. Without acting on the to the 3^^ respondent for passing 2"'^ respondent remanded the matter amendments categorizing the subject appropriate orders in the light of the mineral (s) as major mineral. Therefore, the 3'- respondent is at iiberty to directed by the 2"“ respondent, duly in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) pass orders as of the Rules, 2016, afresh.

¶119

disposed of. 17. In view of the foregoing, the writ petitions are appropriate orders as directed by the directing the 3^^ respondent to pass dated 26.02.2025, without placing any 2^^ respondent vide proceedings recommendation dated 03.02.2025. There reliance on his earlier report and shall be no order as to costs.

¶120

1

¶121

10

¶122

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶123

closed.

¶124

//TRUE COPY//

¶125

Sd/- K TATA RAO deputy registrar SECTIO^^OFFICER