Telangana High Court
C. Sashi Kumar vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 24 June, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.30200 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad - 2nd respondent rejecting the quarry license application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy. No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (old Mahabubnagar District) and granting lease to an extent of 4.96 Hectares over the said land in Sy. No.121/72 in favour of the 5th respondent on the same day i.e. on 08.11.2021.
2. Heard Sri A Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing petitioner, learned Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. N. Shobha the learned counsel representing respondent No.5.
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the application for prospecting license over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (old Mahabubnagar District) and the Director of Mines and Geology granted the same. The prospecting license deed was Dr.GRR,J 2 WP No.30200 of 2021 executed on 06.03.2018 and work order was issued on the same date. The period of prospecting license was from 06.03.2018 to 05.03.2020. The petitioner conducted prospecting operations in the month of April, 2018 and May, 2018 for the purpose of exploring, locating and mining the mineral deposits. The petitioner dug pits for mining the minerals and in the course of prospecting operations, noticed that huge quantity of mineral was available in the prospecting licensed area. He engaged a qualified Geologist Sri P.V. Narayana Rao for preparing a prospecting report of Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy. No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. Accordingly, Sri P.V. Narayana Rao prepared a final prospecting report and submitted to the mines department on 01.10.2018 within the time prescribed under Rule
- 11 of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 (for short 'GCD Rules'). Instead of typing as Form A, Sri P.V. Narayana Rao got typed the report as Form-B, but the fact remained that the petitioner had undertaken the prospecting operations and filed the prospecting report as per the requirement of the Rules. The petitioner filed quarry lease application for Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy. No.121/72 of Godhal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District on 17.08.2019. After 2 years of his application, the petitioner received a Dr.GRR,J 3 WP No.30200 of 2021 show cause notice bearing No.5360/R2-3/2016, dt.24.09.2021 that the petitioner did not submit scheme of prospecting report within 60 days from the execution of prospecting license deed and the licensed area had been inspected on 19.06.2020 and noticed that the licensee did not make any pits/trenches and did not drill any boreholes and did not conduct prospecting operations and further stated that the prospection report submitted by the licensee on 30.05.2019 was an invalid report and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool - 3rd respondent recommended for rejection of quarry lease application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to show cause within 7 days from the receipt of the said show cause notice as to why action should not be taken for rejection of quarry lease application dated 17.08.2019.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the show cause notice did not spell a word about the long delay of more than two years, it was not stated in the show cause notice as to who inspected the licensed area on 19.06.2020 and at whose instance and for what purpose they had inspected the licenced area. When the entire country was under lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic and the guidelines for reopening (unlock-1) was given on 30.05.2020 by the Government of India order dated 30.05.2020, it was not known as to who and why they Dr.GRR,J 4 WP No.30200 of 2021 inspected the prospected licenced area on 19.06.2020. The authorities ought to have given a prior notice to the petitioner and could have directed the petitioner to be present on the said date. No such notice was given to the petitioner basing on which the show cause notice was issued to him. The authorities by relying on the ex parte inspection report, dated 19.06.2020 unilaterally decided that the prospecting licence report was invalid. Hence, it could be concluded that the authorities pre-determined the issue and basing on predetermined mind, issued the show cause notice. Hence, issuance of show cause notice was an empty formality. The authorities being well aware that if they accepted the prospecting licence report, then the petitioner would have accrued a preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of the land over any other applicant as per the 2nd proviso of Clause IV (b) of Rule 12(5), only with an intention to reject the quarry lease application of the petitioner, declared the prospecting report submitted by the petitioner as invalid as per Rule-11 without giving any specific show cause notice to that effect. They ought to have given a prior notice to the petitioner because such rejection or invalidation was a punitive action and it was settled law that before initiating any punitive action, the respondent authorities were bound to Dr.GRR,J 5 WP No.30200 of 2021 adhere to the principles of natural justice. As the authorities grossly violated the same, the show cause notice was liable to be set aside.
3.3 He further submitted that the petitioner personally met the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool to enquire about the stage of his quarry lease application. He was informed that the files were not traceable in the office of the Nagarkurnool. Immediately, the petitioner by his covering letter dated 24.01.2020 furnished the copies of the prospective report dated 30.05.2019 for taking further action. The said letter was received by the office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagoorkurnool on 27.01.2020. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.09.2021 to the show cause notice and categorically stated in his explanation that he had undertaken the prospecting operation during April 2018 and May, 2018 by making pits for identifying Feldspar in the prospecting licenced area. He also stated that the mineral was exposed in the prospecting licenced area on the top of the hill. He submitted the final prospecting report prepared by a recognized person P.V. Narayana Rao on 01.10.2018 (as per the show cause notice, the Mines Department received the same on 30.05.2019). Both the dates were within the time as per Rule-11 of the Granite Conservative and Developmental Rules, 1999). In the prospecting report, he categorically explained the Dr.GRR,J 6 WP No.30200 of 2021 prospecting operation and the availability of mineral in the prospecting licenced area.
3.4 The Director of Mines and Geology - 2nd respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2021 rejected the application of the petitioner by exercising the powers conferred under Rule-12 (5) (d) of Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 (for short 'TSMMC Rules, 1966') AND on the same day by his proceedings dated 08.11.2021 the 2nd respondent granted quarry lease to the 5th respondent over an extent of 4.96 Hectares of land in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.
3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the application of the 5th respondent for quarry lease was alleged to be filed on 24.04.2020. The same was blatantly a false statement because the entire nation was under lockdown restrictions on 24.04.2020. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.11.2021, through which lease was granted to the 5th respondent, would show that the applied area had been inspected on 19.06.2021 and it was also reported that NOC given by the Tahsildar, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District vide Lr. No.B/334/2016, dated 30.05.2016 in respect of the earlier prospecting license held by the writ petitioner, in which the applied area was classified as Government land, Dr.GRR,J 7 WP No.30200 of 2021 would hold good for the quarry lease application and recommended for quarry lease for Quartz & Feldspar over an extent of 4.96 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal village, Balmoor Madal, Nagarkurnool District in favour of the 5th respondent. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool had not followed the procedure and on the other hand, informed the Director of Mines and Geology about the NOC granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016 and on the said NOC, recommended for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent. The same would speak volumes about the intention of the Department in one way or the other to grant the lease in favour of the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent and the 5th respondent were hand in glove with each other. The 3rd respondent in his letter dated 04.09.2021 also reported to the 2nd respondent about the non-availing of the scheme of prospecting by the writ petitioner and about the inspection that took place on 19.06.2020 and recommended for rejection of the quarry lease application of the petitioner. Basing on the said letter, the Director of Mines and Geology issued show cause notice dated 24.09.2021 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the quarry lease application could not be rejected. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.09.2021. Immediately, after receipt of the application of the petitioner, the Director of Mines and Geology by Memo No.5360/R2- Dr.GRR,J 8 WP No.30200 of 2021 3/2014, dated 17.10.2021 directed the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool to inspect the earlier prospecting licenced area situated in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. Immediately, an enquiry was conducted on 30.10.2021 and the report was obtained at 9.30 PM by WhatsApp message on 30.10.2021 itself and immediately on 08.11.2021 the quarry lease application of the petitioner was rejected and on the same day the quarry lease was granted in favour of the 5th respondent. The Mines Department had shown undue haste in the matter of disposal/rejection of the quarry lease application of the petitioner. The Director of Mines and Geology having noticed that the petitioner was already granted with prospecting licence on 19.01.2018 and having noticed that the petitioner had submitted prospecting report as per Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 and having noticed that the petitioner already filed quarry lease application on 17.08.2019 well within time, created a ground that the prospecting report submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules and the petitioner had not at all undertaken any prospecting operation, which was factually not correct. Infact, the Royalty Inspector and the Mining Surveyor inspection report and the panchanama report would categorically demonstrate the prospecting operations carried by the petitioner in the prospecting licened Dr.GRR,J 9 WP No.30200 of 2021 area. The said two reports were intentionally suppressed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool and the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad with an intention to reject the quarry lease application of the petitioner and to grant quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent. The Director of Mines and Geology had not considered the explanation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2021. He only referred about the first explanation dated 28.09.2021. Non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. No reasons were given to reject the explanation of the petitioner dated 28.09.2021. Even otherwise also the application of the petitioner was first in the order of priority. Rule 12(5) of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 was silent as to when an application for either prospecting license or quarry lease could be applied. The application of the petitioner could not be rejected as pre-mature and prayed to set aside the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 08.11.2021 in rejecting the quarry lease application of the petitioner and grant of quarry lease of Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in the same survey number in favour of the 5th respondent by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary.
Dr.GRR,J 10 WP No.30200 of 2021 4.1 The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submitted that the petitioner filed application for prospecting licence over an extent of Acs.200.00 in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District on 21.08.2002. At that point of time, the mineral was classified as major mineral and regulated by Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Ministry of Mines, Government of India notified 31 major minerals as minor minerals including Quartz & Feldspar with effect from 10.02.2015. Accordingly, the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Industries & Commerce (M.I) Department dated 16.03.2016 issued orders to regulate 31 minerals on par with Granite & Marble as per Rule 12(5) of the Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner was granted prospecting licence for Quartz & Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District for two years vide DM&G Proceedings No.5360/R2-3/2014-1, dated 19.01.2018, as the Tahsildar Balmoor Mandal issued NOC to the said extent only. The prospecting licence deed was executed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool on 06.03.2018. The period of prospecting licence was from 06.03.2018 to 05.03.2020. The said proceedings were issued with a condition that the petitioner/Lessee should carry away a Dr.GRR,J 11 WP No.30200 of 2021 maximum quantity of 50 MT of Quartz and Feldspar during the entire period of license after payment of seigniorage fee exclusively, for Research and Development Studies including for all qualitative and testing purposes. But, the petitioner failed to submit Scheme of Prospecting within 60 days from the date of execution of prospecting licence deed as envisaged under Rule 8(1) of GCDR 1999 in the manner in which he proposed to carry out prospecting operations. Further, the prospecting licenced area was inspected by the Royalty Inspector, Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool on 19.06.2020 and noticed that there were no indications of conduct of prospecting operations by the petitioner like digging of pits, trenches, drilling of bore holes etc. The petitioner failed to obtain mineral samples to assess the availability of mineral deposit and mineral resources in the subject area. The petitioner also failed to submit the annual report in Form-A during the period of prospecting licence. The petitioner without complying with the conditions stipulated in the prospecting licence filed quarry lease application for Quartz & Feldspar over an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District on 17.08.2019 i.e. even before the expiry of the prospective licence period, which was not permissible under the Second Proviso of Rule 12 (5)(b) of Dr.GRR,J 12 WP No.30200 of 2021 TSMMC Rules, 1966. Where a prospecting licence had been granted in respect of any land, the licensee shall have preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of that land over any other person in case he had undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and submitted a prospecting report in respect of such land and submitted quarry lease application within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period and such right could be exercised only once over the entire prospected area. Four quarry lease applications were received over the subject area apart from the petitioner's application. The petitioner had not carried out the prospecting of mineral in the subject area as per Rule 12(7)(ii) of TSMMC Rules. As verified from the records, the petitioner had not obtained any permit to carry away the minerals from the prospecting licence area for the purpose mentioned therein as per Rule 12 (7) (ii). The prospecting licensee should carry away the maximum quantity of 50 MT during the entire period of prospecting licence after payment of seigniorage fee exclusively for Research and Development studies including qualitative and testing purpose. Thus, it was evident that the prospecting of mineral in the subject area was not carried out by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner submitted prospecting report in Form-B instead of in Form-A. In the said report, the petitioner informed the Dr.GRR,J 13 WP No.30200 of 2021 number of pitting, drafting and drilling made as Nil. Therefore, the prospecting licence report submitted by the petitioner was not as stipulated under Rule-8(1) of GCDR, 1999. After considering the matter in detail, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool submitted proposals to the Director of Mines and Geology and recommended for rejection of quarry lease application of the petitioner, as the quarry lease application was filed before expiry of the prospecting licence period which was pre-mature. The prospecting licence report submitted by the petitioner was examined and found that the same was incorrect and incomplete and far away from ground reality. There was no data like details of scale of map and geological mapping; pits, trenches, bore holes; particulars of machinery used; details of exploratory mining taken-up etc. After examining the combined proposals of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool, the Director of Mines and Geology issued show cause notice bearing No.5360/R2-3/2014-1, dated 24.09.2021 to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why action should not be taken for rejection of quarry lease application dated 17.08.2019 as per Rule 12 (5)(d) of TSMMC Rules, 1966. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating that the prospecting operations were conducted and accordingly, prospecting report was submitted and requested for grant Dr.GRR,J 14 WP No.30200 of 2021 of quarry lease. The 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to inspect the subject area in the presence of the petitioner and to submit report for taking further action in the matter. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent inspected the subject area in the presence of the petitioner on 30.10.2021. The 3rd respondent submitted his report to the 2nd respondent vide letter No.1648/PL/2002 dated 30.10.2021. The 2nd respondent, after considering the matter in detail passed orders in the proceedings No.5360/R2-3/2016-1, dated 08.11.2021 rejecting the quarry lease application dated 17.08.2019 of the petitioner. After considering the matter in detail, the 2nd respondent decided in principle for grant of quarry lease in favour of the 5th respondent who was the subsequent eligible applicant as per the Rules and accordingly, issued notice calling for submission of Scrutinized Quarry Plan, EC, CFE & CFO duly rejecting the subsequent applications.
4.2 He further submitted that there was no dispute with regard to availability of the Quartz mineral in the subject area and the Quartz mineral was highly exposed in and around the applied area. But, the petitioner having obtained the prospecting licence for a period of two years, failed to undertake any prospecting operations in the subject area. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, after following the due procedure rejected the application of the petitioner as per law.
Dr.GRR,J 15 WP No.30200 of 2021 4.3 He further contended that the petitioner was having an alternative remedy under the statute as per Rule 35-A of TSMMC Rules, 1966 before the Government. Without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner directly approached this Court which was not permissible under law and prayed to dismiss the petition and to vacate the interim order dated 19.11.2021 passed in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the writ petitioner had not conducted any prospecting operations in compliance of the statutory provisions and had submitted only analysis certificates by his letter dated 30.05.2019. The 5th respondent filed an application under Right to Information Act, and after going through the prospecting report submitted by the petitioner, was able to state that except grabbing of two samples no prospecting was done in terms of the Rules under GCDR, 1999 and the scheme. The licensee had only furnished the test certificate chemical analysis of Quartz and had shown all other columns as Nil. The Director of Mines and Geology rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner by a speaking order after issuing show cause notice and furnishing the rejection order vide proceedings No.5360/R2-3/2016-1, dated 08.11.2021. The petitioner made allegations that the lease was granted to the family members of the 5th respondent. But, there was no bar Dr.GRR,J 16 WP No.30200 of 2021 under the Act or the Rules that the family members could not apply for quarry lease. The petitioner filed number of applications all over the State blocking the grant of lease to others. The petitioner was granted two prospecting licences. He also filed quarry lease application and claimed that he was entitled for two quarry leases. The 5th respondent submitted an application on 24.04.2020 after expiry of prospecting licence period of the petitioner on 05.03.2020, over an extent of 4.96 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Gadwal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District as per Rule 12(5)(c) of T.S. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. As there was no lease existed in favour of the petitioner by the date, the proposal to grant and issuance of letter of intent in favour of the 5th respondent was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The impugned order dated 08.11.2021 was passed by the Director of Mines and Geology after conducting inspection once again by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and on examining the prospecting licence report submitted by the petitioner and found that the same was made up, incorrect and was far away from the ground reality and there was no data like details of scale of map and geological mapping, pits, trenches, bore holes, particulars of machinery used, details of exploratory mining taken up and as the report submitted was not as stipulated under Rule 8(1) of the GCDR, 1999, hence rejected the same. The Director of Dr.GRR,J 17 WP No.30200 of 2021 Mines and Geology had exercised his powers in accordance with law. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.09.2021 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. The writ petitioner filed his explanation on 28.09.2021 and a speaking order was passed by the Director of Mines and Geology rejecting the application by order, dated 08.11.2021. Thus, allegations made by the petitioner were frivolous in nature. The respondents had followed the procedure as per the Rules and issued letter of intent to the 5th respondent as per the Rules and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the record. The petitioner was granted prospecting licence for Quartz and Feldspar in an extent of 9.762 Hectares in Sy.No.121/72 of Godal Village, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District by the Director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.5360/R2- 3/2014-1, dated 19.01.2018 for a period of two years i.e. from 06.03.2018 to 05.03.2020 with a condition that:
"The lessee should erect the boundary pillars around the leased areas at his own cost. The lessee shall carry away a maximum quantity of 50 MT of Quartz and Feldspar during the entire period of license after payment of seigniorage fee. The lessee should transport the mineral under dispatch permits issued by the office. The lessee should abide by the conditions laid down by the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad grant proceedings and the Rules & Regulations of TSMMC Rules, 1966 and the Regulations 109 & 127 of Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961."
Dr.GRR,J 18 WP No.30200 of 2021 Chapter-III of Granite Conservation and Mineral Development Rules, 1999 (for short 'GCMD Rules') deals with prospecting operations and Rule-8 deals with Scheme of Prospecting. Rule-8 of GCMD Rules reads as under:
"8. Scheme of prospecting.- (1) Every holder of a prospecting licence for granite shall submit to the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by that Government within a period of sixty days from the date of execution of the prospecting licence, a scheme of prospecting indicating the manner in which he proposes to carry out the prospecting operation, in the area covered by the licence and the scheme shall incorporate the following; namely :-
(a) particulars of the area;
(b) the scale of the plan and the area of geological mapping;
(c) the number of pits, trenches, and bore holes which he proposes to put in the area and the locations thereof;
(d) the particulars of the machines to be used;
(e) the details of exploratory mining to be undertaken;
(f) the number of samples proposed to be drawn and tested;
(g) baseline information of prevailing environmental conditions before the beginning of the prospecting operations;
(h) any other matter relevant for the preparation of a scheme of prospecting, as directed by the State Government or any person so authorised from time to time by a general or specific order.
(2) The prospecting scheme under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by a recognised person or a geologist or a mining engineer employed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 38."
7. The prospecting operations are to be carried out in accordance with the scheme of prospecting as per Rule-10 of GCMD Rules reads as under:
Dr.GRR,J 19 WP No.30200 of 2021 "10. Prospecting operations to be carried out in accordance with scheme of prospecting.- Every holder of a prospecting licence for granite shall carry out the prospecting operations in accordance with the scheme of prospecting submitted under rule 8 or with such modifications, if any, as intimated under rule 9 or as directed by the State Government or any person authorised by that Government in this behalf."
8. Rule-11 of GCMD pertains to report of prospecting operations. It reads as under:
"11. Report of prospecting operations.- (1) Every holder of a prospecting licence for granite shall submit to the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by that Government an annual report in Form A so as to reach them by 30th April for the previous year;
Provided that a report in Form-A shall be submitted within a period of three months after the completion of abandonment of the prospecting operations or the expiry of the prospecting licence, whichever is earlier.
(2) Where prospecting operations for granite are carried out by any authority specified in the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act without a prospecting licence, such authority shall submit the annual report in Form A to the State Government or any person authorised by that Government in respect of each area where prospecting operations for granite have been undertaken by them. Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply in a case where field operations consist of only geological mapping or geophysical or geo-chemical investigations.
(3) The State Government or any person authorized in this behalf by that Government shall forward a copy, each of the annual report in Form-A received under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), as the case may be, to the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, within thirty days from the date of such receipt."
Dr.GRR,J 20 WP No.30200 of 2021
9. As seen from the counter filed by the respondents No.1 to 3, the petitioner failed to submit the scheme of prospecting within 60 days from the date of execution of prospecting licence as envisaged under Rule-8(1) of the GCMD Rules 1999 and as per the report filed by the Royalty Inspector, office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool on 19.06.2020, there was no evidence of conducting prospecting operations like digging, pitting, bore holes etc., and the petitioner failed to obtain mineral samples and to assess the availability of mineral deposit and mineral resources in the subject area and failed to submit the annual report in Form-A during the period of prospecting licence.
10. The petitioner contended that the authorities had not inspected the prospecting licenced area by giving a notice to him and contended that it was an exparte inspection report. Considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to inspect the subject area in the presence of the petitioner once again and to submit report to take further action. A joint inspection was conducted on 30.10.2021 in the presence of the petitioner by the Royalty Inspector, Mining Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Department Officials and MRO of Godal Village. The petitioner also admitted that the Mining Officials and Dr.GRR,J 21 WP No.30200 of 2021 Revenue Officials had taken the photographs and collected the required information in the prospecting licenced area and that a panchanama was conducted. The Royalty Inspector, after inspection submitted a report stating that as per the field observation, the expired prospecting licenced area was mound occupied with pegmatite vein raised up to a height of 25 to 30 mtrs from the general ground level and the Quartz mineral was highly exposed in the area and occupied by shrubs and bushes and during the course of inspection it was noticed that there were no bore holes, but found two old irregular pits and two fresh irregular pits and among the two old pits, one pit was utilized as dump yard by the local people. Thus, the second inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and as such he could not contend about the violation of principles of natural justice. As per the petitioner also, he only collected the samples of Quartz mineral from the excavated pits and sent them to the lab for chemical analysis. As per Rules 10 and 11 of GCD Rules, the petitioner shall submit the annual report in Form-A by 30th April for the previous year and further it shall be submitted within a period of three months from the date of abandonment. The period of prospecting licence of the petitioner was expired by 23.04.2020 and the report prepared by the recognized person Sri P.V. Narayana Rao was submitted by the petitioner on 01.10.2018. The Dr.GRR,J 22 WP No.30200 of 2021 report was also admittedly not in Form-A, but filed as Form-B and not submitted within three months after the date of abandonment as per the Rules. The details of exploration v/s. proposals in the scheme of prospecting were stated in serial No.15 of the said report as under:
A. Achievements. Total
(i) Aerial reconnaissance Nil.
(ii) Topographic survey and geological Mapping
(a) Scale 1:1000
(b) Area covered 9.762 Ha
(iii) Geophysical survey/Prospecting Nil
(iv) Geochemical survey Nil
(v) Pitting
(a) No. of Pits Nil
(b) Dimensions in meters
(c) Quantum of excavation (m3)
(vi) Trenching
(a) No. of trenches Nil
(b) Dimensions in meters
(c) Quantum of excavation (m3)
(vii) Drilling
(a) Type of drilling
(b) No.of boreholes Nil
(c) Grid spacing
(d) Meterage
(e) Geophysical logging
(viii) Exploratory Mining
(a) Opencast excavation (m3) Nil.
(b) UG Audit (m)
(c) UG Incline (m)
(d) Shaft (m)
(ix) No. of samples drawn for chemical analysis
(a) Grab/Chip/Channel/Groove samples. Two
(b) Borehole samples Nil
(x) Number of samples of petrologocal/ mineralogical Nil.
studies
(xi) No. of samples for bulk density studies Nil.
(xii) No. of samples for beneficiation studies with Nil.
quantity.
11. The report would disclose that all the columns of geophysical survey/prospecting, geochemical survey, pitting, trenching, drilling Dr.GRR,J 23 WP No.30200 of 2021 exploratory mining, number of samples for petrologocal/mineralogical studies, number of samples for bulk density studies and number of samples for beneficiation studies with quantity were shown as 'Nil'. It would not show that any prospecting was done in terms of the Rules under GCMR 1999 and the scheme of prospecting provided under Rule 8.
12. Considering the report of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and the report of the recognized person, the 2nd respondent - Director of Mines and Geology vide speaking order rejected the quarry lease application of the petitioner, due to non-conducting of prospecting operations observing that the petitioner had submitted an incorrect and incomplete and made up prospecting licence report and that it was far away from the ground reality and there was no data like details of scaling of mapping and geological mapping, pits, trenches, bore holes particulars of machinery used, details of exploratory mining taken up etc.
13. The 2nd respondent also observed that the petitioner had filed quarry lease application before the expiry of prospecting licence period and the same was pre-mature. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shaik Nursrath Banu v. State of A.P. and others1 which was pertaining to 1 2010 (1) ALD 260 (DB) Dr.GRR,J 24 WP No.30200 of 2021 renewal of quarry lease and where the Rules stipulate that the application for renewal shall be made 90 days before the expiry of the period of lease. But, in the present case, as per Rule 12(5)(b) of TSMMC Rules, 1966 where prospecting licence has been in respect of any land the licensee shall have preferential right for obtaining a quarry lease in respect of that land over any other person in case he has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources and shall submit a quarry lease application within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period.
15. Thus, the petitioner should make an application for lease within three months after expiry of the prospecting licence period. But, he made an application on 17.08.2019 i.e. even before expiry of the prospecting licence period, which was granted up to 23.04.2020. Thus, as rightly stated by the Director of Mines and Geology - 2nd respondent, the said application was pre-mature and was liable to be rejected on the said ground also.
16. Considering that the report of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner is a speaking order considering all the facts and circumstances of the case passed after considering the prospecting licenced report submitted by the petitioner and the inspection report submitted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, this Court does Dr.GRR,J 25 WP No.30200 of 2021 not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was biased and illegal.
17. Admittedly, the petitioner was also having an alternative remedy available under the statute as per Rule 35-A of Telangana State Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 before the Government. The petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy, directly approached this Court as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground also. Hence, it is considered fit to dismiss the petition.
18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J June 24, 2022 KTL