V ADEPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application to the first respondent through proper channel for grant of mining lease for quartzite for an extent of about Acs. 600.00 in survey No. 217 of Kundankota village of Yadiki Mandal in Anantapur District. The application was recommended by the second respondent. The first respondent granted mining lease by their orders in G.O.Ms.No.248, dated 12.09.2006, subject to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the Act, for brevity); the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (the Rules) and subject to the conditions in the lease agreement in Form K appended to the Rules as well as additional conditions appended to the said order. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of the grant of lease, the first respondent also approved the mining plan as required under Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, which is valid for the entire duration of twenty years period and subject to such modifications that may be made by the first respondent. When the petitioner was taking steps to complete other formalities for commencing mining operations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.270, dated 27-09-2006 according permission to the third respondent to lay the 'belt surveyor' with structure passing through the mining area granted to the petitioner. The said G.O., was issued in partial modification of the orders in G.O.Ms.No248, dated 12-09-2006, by which mining lease was granted to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by G.O.Ms.No.270, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking its invalidation.

(2.) At the stage of Admission itself, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner has no enforceable right to invoke public law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is also alleged that the application (along with mining plan) of the third respondent for mining lease for limestone over an extent of Acs. 970.17 cents in Survey Nos.57, 58, 60 to 67 etc., of Gudipadu village and Survey Nos.1 to 10 etc., of Kundankota village for a period of twenty years, has been forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act as the area exceeds 10 square kilometres. So as to transport the mineral from the crusher in survey No. 216 of Kundankota village, through various survey numbers in the said village, the 'conveyor belt' is proposed to carry mineral to the factory site as it is not possible to lay a road to transport limestone for the cement factory. The proposed 'belt conveyor' would traverse the land in survey Nos.216, 217, 223, 225, 227 and 254 of Kundankota village. The allegation that the first respondent deleted entire extent of Acs.28.40 cents in survey No.217 alone is baseless as the impugned G.O., refers to other survey numbers by describing them as survey No.217 etc. The grant of lease to the petitioner has not been crystalised as no lease deed is executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. The laying of the proposed 'belt conveyor' would not be detrimental to the petitioner as the same would occupy very small extent as against total extent of Acs. 595.43 cents, which would yield quartzite for a period of 657 years. The first respondent issued impugned order duly considering all aspects of the matter and following principles of natural justice. There is no other suitable area for laying 'belt conveyor' and if the third respondent is not allowed to do so, it would be incapacitated from transporting crushed mineral. The writ petition is not bona fide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that whether or not the petitioner executed lease deed in Form K, he has a right against arbitrary reduction of mining area, which is granted to him validly by G.O.Ms.No.248, dated 12-09-2006. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have conducted enquiry, after giving notice to the petitioner and they ought to have shown the place or places through which the 'belt conveyor' would pass so that there would not be any detriment or loss to the petitioner by reason of such 'belt conveyor' obstructing trial mining areas undertaken by the petitioner. He would urge that when once mining plan is approved under Rule 22(4) of the Rules, the same cannot be altered or modified without notice to the mining lessee. Lastly, he would urge that the third respondent is even granted mining lease for limestone but the third respondent is going ahead with the construction of 'belt conveyor', which itself is illegal and contrary to the Rules. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for third respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries for respondents 1 and 2, submit that petitioner has no right to file the present writ petition. Secondly, they would urge that the inchoate right of the petitioner, by reason of grant of mining lease for quartzite, is no more violated as respondents 1 and 2 have followed duo process of law before issuing the impugned order. The learned counsel points out that though mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for quartzite even before the petitioner could execute the lease deed in Form K, the Government issued impugned orders modifying earlier Government Order, ad therefore, the petitioner gets the lease for quartzite excluding the area over which the third respondent proposed to lay 'belt conveyor'.