VICTORIAN GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. P RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the division bench of the A. P. High court made on 14/12/1995 in WP No. 6592 of 1994. The appellant had filed a revision under Section 35-A of the A. P. Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, "the Rules"). The government after issuance of notice, set aside the transfer of the leasehold rights had by the first respondent, P. Rama Rao, who was the original lessee, to M/s Magam Inc. in respect of the leasehold interests in the four leases granted in various GOs for about 103 acres which facts are not in dispute. When the mattercame up for hearing, this court issued notice as to how and under what circumstances P. Rama Rao came to transfer these leasehold interests to the second respondent, and whether they are sustainable in law The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) It is not in dispute that P. Rama Rao had applied for and obtained leases on various dates for quarrying granite in R. L. Puram in Chimokurthy Mandalam of Prakasam District for a period of ten years on 7/10/1989. Subsequently, on 8/10/1990, he had executed the lease deed. He transferred the leases in favour of Magam Inc. on 8/10/1992. The question is whether the transfer of the leasehold rights is valid and sustainable in law It is true, as contended by Shri K. R. Chowdhary, the learned counsel for the respondents, that clause (8 of Appendix to the Lease and clause (ix) of Rule 31 of the Rules, prohibit transfer or assignment or sub-lease of the leasehold interests in the mining lease, granted in favour of the lessee, except with prior permission by the competent authority after expiry of two years. At the relevant time, the competent authority was the Deputy Director. Exactly on expiry of 2 years from the date of the grant of the lease, P. Rama Rao had applied on 7/10/1992 for assignment of the lease in favour of Magam Inc. and the next day, viz. , 8/10/1992, the Deputy Director, promptly and willingly had ordered transfer to Magam Inc. of the leasehold rights had by P. Rama Rao. It does not appear that any publicity was given inviting objections from others. The question, therefore, is whether the action taken by the Deputy Director is valid in law