Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kanigiri Vaddera Stone Quarrying ... vs State Of A.P. & Ors. on 19 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD208, 1999(2)ALT190
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. The appellant impugned the quarry lease renewed in favour of the 5th respondent-Society by the competent authority for a period of five years under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
2. The learned single Judge, while determining the question raised in the writ petition to the effect whether the State is within its right to condone the delay in filing the renewal application, dismissed the writ petition inter alia holding that the Government is empowered to condone the delay of eight days. The question relating to the condonation of delay of eight days is raised in the following factual matrix :
The 5th respondent-Society was granted lease for 2 acres in S. No. 1010/1 vide order dated 27-3-1988. Another lease in respect of S.No.1009 for 1.25 acres was also granted on the same day in favour of the fifth respondent-Society. Under the rules, the lessee is statutorily entitled for renewal of lease for five years twice. The first renewal of the lease for five years was granted on 25-5-1993. As regards the second renewal, the 5th respondent claims that it has approached the Assistant Director of Mines for renewal on 25-5-1998 itself with requisite amount and the amount was deposited on the said date itself which is on the record. But the application was returned by the competent authority directing the respondent to produce a mineral revenue clearance certificate from the Mandal Revenue Authority which the respondent was able to secure only after 8 days and thus the application was resubmitted on 3-6-1998. However, the Government by order dated 21-12-1998, condoned the said delay and directed the competent authority to reconsider the case of the 5th respondent for renewal of the lease as well as the case of the petitioner for grant of lease. The authority considered the case of the writ petitioner-appellant as well as the 5th respondent and granted renewal of the lease in favour of the 5th respondent.
3. The sole contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant is that the competent authority has no power to condone the delay in applying for renewal of the lease and the application having been filed with a delay of 8 days the lease could not have been renewed in favour of the 5th respondent.
4. A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 provide for disposal of the applications for grant of quarry leases for minor mineral. It envisages that lease shall be executed within 90 days from the date of grant or within such further period as the Director may allow in this behalf provided the grantee prays for extension of time within 30 days from the date of expiry of the period stipulated for execution. Such extension can be granted by the Director not exceeding two times and each time not exceeding 30 days and if the lease deed is not executed within the stipulated period or extended period, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to revoke the order granting lease. The rule further enables the lessee to apply for renewal of quarry licence accompanied by a treasury or bank challan for Rs.1,000/- in token of remittance towards fee be made at least 90 days before the expiry of the period of lease to the Deputy Director on whom it has been enjoined to dispose of the application before the expiry of the lease period. And if the application is not so disposed of within that period, it shall be deemed to have been not renewed. There is no provision under the Act, as regards limitation for the grant of lease or renewal of lease. Statutory limitation has been provided under the rules only.
5. Be that as it is, even assuming that there is no provision for condonation of delay, though in the factual context in the present case there is no delay, that by itself would not denude the State to consider the applications for grant of lease in aMunicipal jurisdiction. The State has directed the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant as well as the 5th respondent for grant of lease. The authorities considered the claim of both the parties and preferred to grant a lease in favour of the 5th respondent. May be it is termed as grant of a lease but it is renewal of lease for five years. Merely by the expression used in regulating the subsistence of the grant of lease it cannot be termed that the renewal of the lease is beyond the period of limitation provided under the rules. Granting of a lease would be a renewal of a lease though it has not been termed as a renewal of lease. Even assuming that it is a renewal of lease it is inherent in the lessor to grant a lease after the expiry of the period of limitation as a matter of right under its inherent discretionary jurisdiction. In totality the 5th respondent being entitled to grant of renewal of lease twice over five years and the appellant having only applied for grant of lease in respect of S.No. 1009 and there is no claim by it for grant of lease with respect to S.No.1010/1, we find it is not a fit case to invoke the equitable writ jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order even if there is some irregularity in granting the lease to 5th respondent for the reason that substantial justice has been done in regulating the lease because the 5th respondent is a Society of the Scheduled Tribes i.e., the weaker section of the Society constituted with 1350 members whereas the appellant-Society is only constituted with 33 members, thus providing livelihood to a large number of members petitioners-Society. The appellant has no right to be considered for grant of lease. Thus, no mandamus can be issued directing the State to grant lease in favour of the appellant when the State chooses to grant the lease to the 5th respondent after considering the case of the appellant.
6. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.