DEVANGULA LAXMINARAYANA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 1.526 hectares of land covered by Survey No : 775/1 in Bethamcherla village, Kurnool District was leased out by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Cuddapah District in favour of Messrs Hussainia Slabs Polishing and Mineral Industry for a period of five years from 19-9-1984 to 18-9-1989 for exploitation of lime stone slabs (a minor mineral). The lessee did not make an application for renewal within ninety days as required under Rule 12 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966. The petitioner herein Labour Contract Co-operative Society, H. Kottala Village, represented by its President Devangula Laxminarayana made an application for grant of lease of the same area on 24-8-1989. The third respondent herein also submitted an application in respect of the same land requesting for grant of lease on 12-7-1989. The third respondent was granted lease but the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology- the second respondent herein on 27-9-1989 in Memorandum No. 5399/ Q 2/89, on the ground that the application is premature as per the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. Challenging the action of the second respondent, the present writ petition was filed for a declaration that

(2.) Sri Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that, unless availability of the land for the purpose of mining lease is made known to the public, it is not possible to submit any application seeking lease of the land, that with great difficulty, the petitioner was able to ascertain availability of the land, and that the application of the petitioner should not be.thrown out on the ground that it is premature. It is not possible for any one to ascertain whether or not the existing lessee had made an application seeking renewal within ninety days before the expiry of the lease and, therefore any application submitted for fresh grant cannot be thrown out on the ground that it was not submitted within thirty days before the expiry of the lease, or, it was premature. In opposition to this, the learned Government Pleader contends that, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to ascertain about availability of the land, and what is clearly enjoined by sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 cannot be departed from merely because the petitioner could not obtain correct information.

(3.) The mineral in question viz., lime stone slabs, is a minor mineral. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 says that, no person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence, or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under the said Act and the rules made thereunder. This will not apply to the Central Government, State Government or the departments specified in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4. Sub-section (2) says that, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Sub-section (2) imposes an obligation on the competent authority to inform the applicant acknowledging receipt of the application 'within the prescribed time and in the prescribed form'. Power is conferred on the State Government to grant or refuse to gran' a prospecting licence or lease having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules.