C SYAMALA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, the State Government passed an order in G.O. Ms. No. 305, Industries and Commerce (VI. III), dated 20-7-1988 cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner under Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Impugning that order this writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to it and quash the same.

(2.) For a period of twenty vears a mining lease in respect of an extentof 4 acres covered by S.No. 317 of Kiwaka village, Booragumpadu Mandal, Khammam district was granted in favour of the petitioner for purpose of extracting the mineral quartz on 15-9-1982. Bv G O. Ms. No. 560, Industries and Commerce, Rule 28 of the mineral Concession Rules which was inserted by way of an amendment came into effect on 10-2-1987. The rule reads :

(3.) Tt is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thatalthough there has been no cessation of mining activity by the petitioner, the impugned order was issued. If only a notice had preceded the impugned order, the petitioner would have submitted explanation setting out all the facts in order to establish her claim that there was no cessation of mining activity for a period of one year as alleged in the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader in opposition to this contends that there is no need to issue notice since it was found on verification that the petitioner did not work the mine for a period of one year. The learned Government Pleader also relies upon a decision of the learned single Judge, (Jagannadha Rao, J.) of this court in W.P. No. 3623/89 dated 30-3-1989 in support of the contention that in cases where Rule 28 (1) of the rules is made applicabls, issuance of notice is unnecessary.