P RAMA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main petition by P. Rama Rao and another is directed against a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 157, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 2-4-1994, passed by the second respondent and for declaring Section 15 (1-A) (n) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (Act No.67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') in so far as it enabled the State Government to make Rules providing for the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority under these Rules may be made and Rule 35-A of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') illegal and void.

(2.) The Government acquired Ac. 86-50 cents in S.No. 55/5, Rajupalem, Lakshmipuram village, Cheemakurthi Mandalam, Prakasam District, as it was surplus in the hands of one G. Subrahmanyam on 20-6-1992 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which contained rocks and minor minerals. Rama Rao submitted an application in the year 1988 to the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Ongole, (fifth respondent herein) for grant of mining lease over an extent of 25 acres out of the said land. The Collector, Ongole, however, sent proposals to the Government to release the land for being leased out to private persons through the Department of Mines and Geology for mining purposes subject to such terms and conditions as the Collector with the approval of the Government deemed necessary. When the applications were processed, the Collector by letter, dated 7-3-1989, informed the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Guntur, accordingly and recommended the grant of mining lease in favour of Rama Rao. The Government by G.O.Rt.No.876, Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, dated 3-6-1989, approved the terms of the lease. The period of lease was fixed for five years on an annual lease amount of Rs.600/- per acre. The Collector was directed to collect the entire lease amount before handing over the possession. The Government Order also stated that the lease was approved with the concurrence of the Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, vide U.O.No.l772/M.IV-2/89-l, dated 30-5-1989. Rama Rao paid the entire lease amount for the period of five years and revenue for 25 acres of land. Five lease documents were executed accordingly in favour of Rama Rao, the total extent being Ac. 15-54 cents, for a period of five years for different extents of area - two from July, 1989; two from January 1990 and one from July, 1990. Since the Deputy Director did not grant lease for the balance area of Ac.9-47 cents, Rama Rao filed Writ Petition No.9850 of 1990 in this Court in which the Court directed to consider his application and pass appropriate orders. The sixth respondent - M/s. Victorian Granites Private Limited, filed Writ Petition No.12228 of 1990 alleging that it had applied on 2-8-1985 for mining lease over 108 acres in S.No.(old) 55/4B Part - new 55/4B; 55/5 and 55/6 and sought directions for grant of lease in its application in the said lands. It was disposed of on 13-9-1990 directing the Deputy Director to pass orders in accordance with law. Sixth respondent also filed Writ Appeal No.918 of 1992 against the judgment in the petition by Rama Rao (i.e. Writ Petition No.9850 of 1990) of the Court directing the Deputy Director to consider the former's application and pass appropriate orders. The Court directed the Deputy Director to dispose of the applications on merits. However, the order under appeal was not interfered with. The Deputy Director granted two more leases over Ac. 2-46 cents and four acres respectively to Rama Rao. Sixth respondent sought a consent letter to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur, from Rama Rao to enable it to acquire a quarry lease over an extent of three acres in S.No.55/5 out of 25 acres granted by the Government to him and Rama Rao gave such a consent letter and the sixth respondent was granted lease over an extent of three acres by the fourth respondent i.e. Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur. Rama Rao made an application to the Deputy Director that with effect from 20-10-1990 he had joined as a partner in the second petitioner firm (i.e. M/s. Magam Inc. Exporters & Importers, Madras) seeking transfer of the lease over an extent of Ac.11-54 cents. The second petitioner also made a similar request. The Deputy Director (fourth respondent) on 8-10-1992 ordered the transfer. One Y.A. Perilingam filed Writ Petition No.12119 of 1990 seeking direction to the authorities to consider his claim over Ac. 86-50 cents in S.No.55 and setting aside of the mining leases granted in favour of Rama Rao. In the said proceeding the Government Pleader represented to the Court that the Government had exercised suo motu powers under Rule 35-A of the Rules against the grant of quarry leases in S.No.55/5. Rama Rao (first petitioner) or the second petitioner, however, were not aware of the same until the Government issued a notice on 10-5-1993 i.e. after the disposal of the said writ petition on 13-4-1993. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following. directions:

(3.) By the Memo, dated 10-5-1993, the Government asked the petitioners and the sixth respondent to make representations regarding the grant of leases as the Government was of the prima facie opinion that the grants were not in conformity with the Rules and that the Government had decided to take up suo motu revision under Rule 35-A of the Rules, (after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties). Rama Rao went to the Court of District Munsif, Ongole, in O.S.No.180 of 1993 and sought injunction against the Government from proceeding with the enquiry as per memorandum, dated 10-5-1993, in respect of 22 acres in S.No.55/5 (extent of area covered by the leases executed by the Government in favour of Rama Rao). The second petitioner also filed O.S.No.1787 of 1993 in the Court of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 9-6-1993. Respondents 2 to 5 filed Writ Petition No.8400 of 1993 and questioned the Ongole suit and the interim orders passed therein. The second petitioner, however, could not get any order in the suit and the plaint was returned to it for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that Hyderabad Court had no territorial jurisdiction. The Government, however, issued memo, dated 1-6-1993, referring to the two Revision Petitions filed by Y.A. Perilingam and M/s. Victoria Granites Private Limited (sixth respondent) as well as its earlier memo, dated 10-5-1993, and directing the parties to appear on 15-6-1993 to represent their cases. When copies of the documents were asked for and not supplied to the petitioners, they filed Writ Petition No.7525 of 1993 on 14-6-1993. The Court in W.P.M.P.No.9428 of 1993, vide order dated 14-6-1993, stayed the proceedings before the Government. Copies of some documents, however, were supplied, as demanded by the petitioners, by the Government in the evening of 14-6-1993 itself. Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1993 was dismissed on the ground that roving investigation by the petitioners was not permissible and that documents were of confidential nature and could not be claimed. Writ Petition No.8400 of 1993 challenging the Ongole Suit and the orders passed therein by the Government, was allowed to the extent that the order in the Interlocutory Application in the Ongole suit was quashed. Petitioners filed Writ Appeal Nos.817 and 818 of 1993 against the said orders in the writ petitions. Writ Appeal No.818 of 1993 was dismissed and Writ Appeal No.817 of 1993 was disposed of with the direction that the materials relied on by the revision petitioners and the Government would be furnished to the appellants. Petitioners moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 3526 and 3527 of 1994 against the orders in Writ Appeal Nos. 817 and 818 of 1993. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Petitioners by separate memos, dated 16-3-1994, were informed by the Government that suo motu enquiry would be held on 25-3-1994 at 3 p.m. and Revision Petitions would be heard on 25-3-1994 at 4-30 p.m. Petitioners moved a petition on 25-3-1994 before the Minister (the Government) to decide the jurisdictional issue and until such decision, to stay the proceedings. The Minister, however, disagreed with the contention and decided to proceed with the enquiry. Petitioners submitted written arguments and served copies of the arguments on the counsel for revision petitioners. Petitioners filed once again a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.5930 of 1994 in this Court on 30-3-1994 seeking declaration that Section 15(1-A) (n) of the Act and Rule 35-A of the Rules and the consequential enquiry were illegal and void and for prohibiting the Government from proceeding with the matter. Before, however, any significant development could take place in the said writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.157, dated 2-4-1994. This development caused withdrawal of Writ Petition No.5930 of 1994 and filing of the instant petition.