SUVARNA CEMENTS LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the Orders passed by the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 653, Industries and Commerce (MI) Department, dated 22-7-1991.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition can be traced out in nutshell.

(3.) 4th respondent-Rockland Minerals and Chemicals Limited filed an application for mining lease for lime stone over an extent of 200 acres in S. Nos. 875 and 876 of Mellacheruvu village, Kodad Taluk, Nalgonda District for the purpose of setting of mini cement plant. Accordingly, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 779, dated 30-12-1982 granting mining lease for a period of 20 years. The lease deed was executed on 23-6-1983, however, the 4th respondent did not set up the cement industry. Under sub-section (4) of Section 4-A of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, where holder of an industry fails to undertake mining operation for a period of one year after the date of the execution of the lease or after commencing the mining operations discontinued for a period of one year, the lease stand lapsed. However, the lease could be revived under certain circumstances. The connected rule was also brought into effect on 10-2-1987. On the basis of the said rule, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also informed all the subordinate offices to bring it to the notice of the leaseholders. Accordingly, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, the 3rd respondent herein by letter dated 23-3-1988 informed the 4th respondent about the amendment and called upon him to take necessary action, but no action was taken. It was only on 28-1-1989, the 4th respondent submitted an application to revive the lease with a prayer for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 1208, dated 28-9-1989 on the ground that the application was time-barred and there is no power to condone the delay. In the same Order, the Government declared that the lease granted by the 4th respondent has lapsed and directed the Director of Mines and Geology-2nd respondent to send the proposals to notify rule 59 for the purpose of re-grant. It is also stated that after application for revival was filed and prior to rejection dated 29-1-1989, the 4th respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 6470 of 1989 seeking direction to permit it to commence the mining operations. While so, the 4th respondent submitted another application dated 20-11-1990, to the then Honourable Minister for Mines and Geology for reviving the mining lease without mentioning the earlier rejection dated 28-9-1989, on which the Government called for the remarks of the Director of Mines and Geology. But, in the meanwhile, 4th respondent filed yet another application on 24-4-1991 to the Government for the same relief with a prayer for condonation of delay. However, the Government passed orders in G.O. Rt. No. 653, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 22-7-1991 reviving the lease with effect from 10-2-1988 by condoning the delay in filing the revival application. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after the lease in favour of the 4th respondent was revived, it was transferred in favour of 5th respondent-Devi Cements and the name of the Company is now changed to My Home Cements. But, as far as this writ petition is concerned, the changes subsequent to revival would be irrelevant. It is contended that when once the application was rejected there is no provision for again considering the same request and it amounts to review the Order of rejection. Such a power is not available to the Government. It is also contended that when once the lease has lapsed by virtue of the statutory provisions, it shall be construed as if there is no lease at all and the question of reviving the non-existing lease to existent lease is illegal and misconstrued. Thus, it is submitted that there was violation of sub-section (4) of Section 4-A of the Act. Further, it is also stated that transferring the lease in favour of the 5th respondent in the guise of sister concern is also unsustainable in law as such a provision is not available under the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that the petitioner has made an application on 1-7-1988 in Form-VIII to the Director of Mines and Geology for grant of prosperous licence over entire area in question. On account of the lease, having been revived, the petitioner is put to serious prejudice.