C M RAMANATHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in passing the final order No.100/98, dated 9-9-1998 in Revision Application No.3(8)/95/RC-I/RC-II of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, as illegal and arbitrary and further to direct the 2nd respondent-Government to renew the subleases granted to the petitioner for another period of 20 years from 19-2-1995.

(2.) The brief facts of the case for better appreciation are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is the lessor of the lands for mining operations. 5th respondent - A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., is the lessee. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent as a lessee is permitted to sublease to outsiders for mining operation. In that process, the petitioner along with some others was granted sublease for different areas for quarrying of barytes ore. The lease period was up to 18-2-1995. While so, Government issued G.O.Ms. No.441, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department dated 5-11-1990 granting permission to the 5th respondent to sublease the mining operation for barytes in certain extents to different individuals including the petitioner. However, this G.O. is subject to certain conditions and those conditions will be referred to at appropriate place. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent -Government issued G.O.Ms. No.402 Industries and Commerce (Mines.I) Department dated 1-12-1993 accepting the recommendations of the House Committee with regard to some illegalities committed in mining operations and accordingly cancelled all the existing subleases. Consequently, the Government issued another G.O. Ms. No.417 Industries and Commerce (Mines.I) Department dated 7-12-1993 withdrawing its consent given to the 5th respondent for subleasing of the lands to private parties and ordered that the mining operations shall be done exclusively by the 5th respondent itself. Challenging both the G.Os. i.e., G.O.Ms. Nos.402 and 417, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court and they were allowed by a learned single Judge, by setting aside the said G.Os. Challenging the same, the Government carried the matter in writ appeal and a Full Bench of this Court in a reported judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v, Y.V. Vivekananda Reddy, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge in setting aside G.O.Ms. Nos.402 and 417, came to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice have been violated and therefore without going into other merits, modified the order of the learned single Judge and directed the respondents to issue show-cause notice to the affected parties i.e., sub-lessees, and after receiving the explanations, directed the Government to pass appropriate orders. It appears that accordingly after receiving the explanations, the 2nd respondent - Government passed the orders in proceedings No.20/PSMA/94 dated 9-3-1995 rejecting the claim of the sublessees, including that of the petitioner and also issued G.O.Ms. No.35 Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department dated 9-3-1995 rejecting the request for renewal of the lease period after expiry of their terms. Aggrieved by the proceedings and the G.O.Ms. No.35 dated 9-3-1995, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st respondent - Government of India, which is the revisional authority under the statute. In the meanwhile, the sublessees filed another batch of writ petitions seeking extension of the sublease, because of the interruption in the subsisting period of subleases. The details of the said interruption are not necessary to be reiterated, since the same have been elaborately dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. as well as by the Supreme Court on appeal, in Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of A.P.3 and they will be referred to in the course of the judgment. The Full Bench in the decision cited 2 supra. having regard to the interruption and the resultant hardship caused to the sublessees, granted extension of sublease by ten more months, mainly on the ground that, even during the subsistence of the sublease, the petitioners could not carry on the mining operations. Challenging the said orders of the Full Bench in extending the mining lease for another ten more months, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court both by private individuals in Civil Appeal No.6656- 6657 of 1994 and also by the A.P. Mineral Development Corporation i.e., the 5th respondent herein in Civil Appeal Nos.5115- 5117 of 1996 and the Supreme Court in Verigamto Naveen's case disposed of first set of appeals as having become infructuous, as the lease period had expired by efflux of time. However, the Apex Court partly allowed the second set of appeals and made certain observations, which will also be referred to at appropriate place.

(3.) However, all the aggrieved parties filed revisions before the 1st respondent-Government of India and the same were dismissed by common orders dated 9-9-1998. It is to be noted that the second batch of writ petitions were filed only for the limited extent of extension of lease, which occurred because of interruption. Now the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent both in cancelling his sublease and also refusal of renewal.