PEDAMALLU SRINIVASULU REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner intends to take Mining Lease in respect of Survey No.181 and 182 to an extent of Ac.26.60 cents situated at Inukurthi Vuillage, Podalakur Mandal, Nellore district by way of transfer from Mr.S.V.Maheedar Reddy (for short "the lease holder), S/o.Venkata Krishna Reddy in favour of the petitioner, after giving an amount of Rs.20,000.00 as consideration towards previous development charges of said Mica Mine. The lease holder has executed a letter on the non-judicial stamps paper to the then Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, Hyderabad on 28/7/2023 for transfer of mining lease to the petitioner duly paying the transfer of Mining lease application fee of Rs.2,500.00 vide Ch.No.5219, dtd. 29/1/2004 of STO, Nellore, for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over an extent of Ac.26.60 cents in Survey No.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore district. While so, the 2nd respondent passed a Memo No.47126/R3-1/2010, dtd. 07/12/2010 stating that Mines and Mineral Lease for Mica, Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite over the subject land held by Mr.S.V.Maheedar Reddy to transfer in favour of the petitioner and stated that the lease holderis requested to re-submit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved Mining Plan from the lessee. The lease holder requested for transfer of Mining Lease held by him over the subject area in favour of the petitioner, as he was unable to perform the Mining operations. But the respondents have not considered the transfer of the Mining lease application so far. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.697 of Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dtd. 28/7/1976 have granted a Mining Lease for Mica over an extent of Ac.26.60 cents in Survey No.181 and 182 of Inkurthy Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore district, for a period of 20 years in favour of Mr.S.V.Maheender Reddy and the same was executed vide proceedings No.5069/M1/90, dtd. 9/7/1992 of the 3rd respondent for a period of 20 years i.e., from 9/7/1992 to 8/7/2012. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.220, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dtd. 8/8/2006 have accorded permission for inclusion of Quartz, Feldspar and Vermiculite as additional minerals in addition to the Mica for the said area of Mining Lease. The lease holder vide letter dtd. 29/1/2024 has applied for transfer of Mining Lease held by him over the subject area in favour of the petitioner duly paying application fee for transfer of Mining Lease Rs.2,500.00 vide Challan No.5219, dtd. 29/1/2004 of S.T.O. Nellore along with the requisite affidavits as required under the then Rule 347 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Hence, the 3rd respondent vide letter No.5069/M2/90, dtd. 21/3/2009 submitted the proposals to the 2nd respondent to consider the transfer of the Mining lease area in favour of the petitioner for the un-expired portion of the lease period up to 8/7/2012. But the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.471261/R3-1/2010, dtd. 07/12/2010 requested the 3rd respondent to resubmit the transfer proposals after obtaining the valid approved mining plan from the lease holder. But as on date, the lease holder does not submitted the approved mining plan to the subject area mining lease. As per the amended Sec. 10 (A) of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 1957, all the Mineral Concession applications received prior to the date of Commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Department and Regulation) Act, 2015 shall become ineligible. As such the transfer of mining lease application dtd. 29/1/2004 is not tenable under law.