T NANDAGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (On difference of opinion between Raghuvir J. and Waghray J. aggreeing with Raghuvir J.).- This matter has been referred to me under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent on a difference of opinion arising between two members of the Division Bench who heard the writ petition. Raghuvir, J. was inclined to allow the writ petition directing the State Government to accord a mining lease, to the petitioner over an area of 150 Acres in survey No. 876, while Waghray, J. was inclined to dismiss the writ petition.

(2.) Survey Nos. 874 and 876 in village Myallacheruvu in Nalgonda District contain lime-stone which is a raw material for producing cement. The total extent of these two survey-numbers is about 500 Acres. The lands adjacent to these lands also contain lime-stone, though not of the same quality. Those adjacent lands are situated in Y. Madhavaram village. The petitioner, Dr. Nandagopal, applied for a mining lease on 7-11-1983 for the entire extent in survey Nos. 874 and 876. The 2nd respondent, M/s. Suvarna Cements Ltd., applied for a prospecting licence on 7-11 -1983 in respect of lime-stone in these very lands. On the date of its application the 2nd respondent was having a licence for cement plant with a capacity of 200 tonnes per day, at Kurnool, and had applied for shifting the same to the present site, near the said survey-numbers. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he intended to set up a cement plant with a capacity of 100 tones per day, and had applied to the Government for increasing its capacity to 200 tonnes per day. He undertook to set up the plant within three years of the grant of mining lease to him.

(3.) There were two other earlier applicants, namely, Remesh Reddy and M/s. Essar Cements, in respect of these very lands. On 18-9-1984 the State Government sought the prior approval of the Central Government under S.11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, inasmuch as it proposed to grant the mining lease in respect of the entire extent in both the survey numbers in favour of the petitioner, overlooking the said earlier applicants, Ramesh Reddy and M/s. Essar Cements. At this stage, it appears, Ramesh Reddy and Essar cements went out of the picture. They were no longer interested in obtaining a mining lease in respect of these lands. Hence no further reference to them is necessary. Only two contenders remained in the field, namely, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.