ANUPAMA MINERALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (A) The land in survey No. 7 of Gandlepalli village, situated with in Gandlepalli Reserve Forest, contains limestone (Slabs), which is a minor mineral. Several persons applied for mining leases, in respect of the said land. The grant of leases with respect to minor minerals is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1966 framed by the State Government under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957. The appropriate authority to grant the mining leases under these rules is the Assistant Director or the Deputy Director, as the case may be. The competent authority granted four leases in respect of Ac. 25-00, Ac. 35-00, Ac.10-00 and Ac. 15-00 respectively in survey No. 7 in favour of M/s. Anupama Minerals M/s. Anupama Minerals, D. Vital Goud and Mallaiah Goud respectively under his orders dated 11-12-1975, 10-4-1975, 10-4-1975 and 11-12-1975 respectively, for a period of five years. Two more leases were granted on 3-7-1978 in respect of Ac. 16-00 and Ac. 20-00 in favour of Sri Mohd. Rahmutulla Khan and M/s Kalings Shabad Stone Co-operative labour Contract Society, Indanoor respectively for a period of five years. The proviso to R. 9 of the A. P. M. M. C. Rules, requires that the application for grant of a lease in respect of a reserved forest land, can be disposed of only after consultation with the Divisional or the District Forest Officer concerned. The Divisional Forest Officer was accordingly consulted, before granting the above leases; he expressed no objection to the grant of leases.

(2.) With a view to avoid repetition and confusion, it would be sufficient if we state the facts in the Writ Petition No. 9935/1984 wherein the petition is M/s. Anupama Minerals. The leases in its favour was granted on 10-4-1975, and was to expire on 9-4-1980. According to the M. M. C. Rules, a lessee is entitled to two renewals subject to certain conditions and criteria mentioned in R. 31(XIV). The petitioner applied for renewal of his lease on 8-1-1980. No orders were passed on the application for a period of 90 days, with the result, that the petitioners application stood rejected as provided by R. 13(2). Against this deemed rejection, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the State Government, which directed the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, by its order dated 30-4-1980, to entertain and consider the renewal applications, in accordance with Rules.

(3.) At this stage, i.e., after the period of lease had expired, the Forest Department issued a notice to the petitioner, on 23-5-1980, to stop quarrying operations, stating that since the petitioners lease period was expired, he must stop his quarrying operations. (Similar notices were issued to the other lessee also, whose lease too had expired) Against the said notices of the Forest Department, two Writ Petitions 2479 and 2535 of 1980 were filed in this Court. They were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 23-9-1980; the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology was directed to consider the renewal applications filed by the petitioner, according to law and pass orders thereon within six weeks. Pending the passing of the orders by the Deputy Director, the lessees were allowed to continue the quarrying operations.