GVN CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by 1st Respondent dtd. 9/3/2018 in the Revision filed by the Petitioner, which was upheld the order passed by the 3rd respondent dtd. 25/4/2017, having failed to appreciate the issues raised by the Petitioner in regard to the loss caused to exchequer to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees and violation of rules regarding sub leases of mines of black galaxy granite. The Petitioner having noticed the large scale violation rules leading to loss of hundreds of crores of tax, approached the Hon'ble court and filed PIL No. 112 of 013 making a specific complaint regarding illegal mining by the unofficial respondents and the said PIL was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 23/2/2012 directing the respondents to conduct inquiry on the complaints dtd. 23/2/2012 and 23/2/2012 submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the above order, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ongole, has submitted a detailed report dtd. 3/12/2013 to the 3rd Respondent and also to the Collector and District Magistrate, Ongole to take appropriate and necessary action on the representations dtd. 22/2/2012 and 23/10/2012. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology has submitted a report dtd. 3/12/2013. Basing on the same, the District Collector, Ongole issued proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole and the Tahsildar,Chimakurthy, to take necessary action and pass resumption orders. It is further stated that, during the enquiry it was revealed that the M/s. Anand Granites Exports Pvt.. Ltd., i.e., 6th respondent herein has obtained mining lease in respect to the land measuring Ac. 14.55 cents situated in Sy.No. 933/1, 933/2 and 960 of Chimakurthi village and Mandal, Prakasam District, for a period of 15 years under the Mining Lease Agreement dtd. 14/12/1993 and also obtained another lease agreement dtd. 27/11/1991 to an extent of Ac.2.57 cents in Sy.No.980/4 and 981/5 of Chimakurthi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of five years. The said company has again obtained another lease deed in the year 1991 for a period of five years for excavating the galaxy granite in the same village to an extent of Ac. 4.47 cents situated in Sy No. 980/1, and 576/2.The 6th Respondent has entered into a sub-lease agreements dtd. 14/12/1993 with 7th Respondent and with 8th Respondents dtd. 27/11/1991 with clear terms and conditions which envisage that the original lease holder shall take 30% of the mineral extracted and the remaining 70% has to be taken by the sub-lease holder. It is also recited in the conditions stipulated in the said sub-lease agreement that the technical assistance and excavating personnel and their expenditure shall be borne by the sub-lease holder. It is further stated that the license obtained by the lease holder for excavating the mineral is not transferable under the rules. Further the rule 12(5)(h) (viii) of AP Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 clearly stipulates that

(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, it is stated that, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur vide Prods.No.6512/Q/1993, dtd. 17/11/1993 has granted a Quarry Lease for Black Galaxy Granite over an extent of 14.55 Acres in favour of 6th Respondent for a period of 15 years and the same was executed before the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole vide Prods.No.3343/Q/1991, dtd. 14/12/1993 upto 13/12/2008. Subsequently, the 1strenewal of above quarry lease was granted by the 3rd Respondent vide Prods.No.3551/R3-1/2007, dtd. 8/7/2011 for further period of 20 years and the same was executed before the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole. It is stated that, as per available records in this office, the 3rd Respondent vide Memo.No.8719/R3-1/2012, dtd.: 15/3/2012 while enclosing a Xerox copy of representation of the petitioner on 23/2/2012 made against the 6th Respondent M/s Anand Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd. and a Xerox copy of contractor supply entered in between the 7th Respondent i.e. M/s Imperial Granites Pvt. Ltd. and 6th respondent and also another Representation of the petitioner and a Xerox copy of contract for supply in between the 8" Respondent i.e. M/s Pokarna Granites Ltd. and respondent instructed the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole to submit detailed report in the matter. Accordingly, the then Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Ongole has requested the lease holders i.e. 6th to 8th respondents to submit their reply on the petition of petitioner. Inturn, the 6th to 8th respondents have submitted their explanations on the representation of petitioner, the 6threspondent through letter dt.26/4/2012 informed that, the agreement entered in between 8threspondent and 6th respondent is only an agreement to sell the product derived from the quarry with certain terms and conditions. The 7threspondent is only buyer and there was no bar under the Act or the rules for entering in to contract of sales and supply of Mineral Black Granite. Further they also informed no title, ownership or possession was passed on to the 7th respondent and finally they requested that, representation of the petitioner can't be entertained by the Dept. Further it is stated that, this office is not aware of the contract for supply entered by 6th to 8th respondents as neither 6threspondent nor 7th respondent/ 8th respondent brought to the notice of the Department earlier. Even the petitioner has also not brought to the notice of department earlier, but after a long gap i.e, 16 years later, the petitioner has brought now to this office. It is further stated that, the 3rd Respondent vide D.Dis. Prods.No.6401/R3-2/2015, dtd.: 25/4/2017 has issued orders for disposal of the Petitioner representations and stated that, on a careful consideration of the representation and subsequent representations submitted by the Petitioner and on examining the contents of the Contract for Supply, it is hereby observed that, the Contract in question is only a Supply Contract and the intention to Sub-Lease or Sub-Let the Mining Lease granted in favour of the 6th Respondent i.e. M/s Anand Granites Exports Private Limited, doesn't exist. With these observations, the representation dtd.: 23/2/2012 and subsequent representations filed by the Petitioner are hereby considered and rejected and no further action need be taken on the said representations. Further, the 1st respondent has conducted personal hearing on 21/12/2017 duly giving reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the Petitioner. After having heard arguments, the 1" Respondent i.e. Government of A.P., Industries & Commerce (Mines.I) Department Memo.No.5554/M.I(1)/2017-3, dtd.: 9/3/2018 has disposed off the Revision application filed by the Petitioner and stated that, the Revisional Authority has observed that in the recitals of the "Contract Supply" document the quarry lease holder has acontract of selling the blocks on certain terms and conditions of procuring the machinery and manpower for quarry operations. In view of the investment made on the above certain share of blocks are given to the raising contractor at the rate of production cost. The advance which is repayable is given by the raising contractor to the quarry lease holder as means of performance security. The recitals and various clauses does not fit into the classification of lease as the lease hold rights over the lease property has not been parted with. Nowhere in the recitals and covenants of the documents the intention of sublease or sublet has been expressed and representation of the Revision applicant that, the agreements are subleases cannot be considered and hence the Revisional authority is hereby upheld the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent i.e. Director of Mines & Geology, Ibrahimpatnam vide Prods.No.6401/R3-2/2015, dtd..25/4/2017.In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the same.