Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Government Of A.P. And Ors. vs Pallava Granite Industries (India) ... on 24 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)ALD684, 2004(2)ALT704
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, K.C. Bhanu
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. This batch of writ appeals and writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since the subject-matter that arises for consideration in all of them is interconnected. The writ appeals themselves were preferred by the State Government as well as the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation against the common order dated 28-3-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereunder and whereby the learned Single Judge having allowed the writ petitions issued certain directions by which the appellants are aggrieved.
2. The controversy centres around the Government's decision in reserving an extent of Acs.61-50 cents of land in Survey No. 55/5 in Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village in Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasham District, for undertaking mining operations by Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (for short 'APMDC'). This land contains galaxy granite and is suitable for mining operations. The galaxy granite derivable from these lands is a special variety for which there is stated to be a great demand in the international market.
3. The case has a long history. That an extent of Acs.86-50 cents of land in Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasham District (hereinafter referred to "as the said land") is registered as agricultural land in the revenue records. The said land was surrendered by the original landholder as a surplus land under the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The State having taken over the said land entered the details of the lands taken over in the prohibitory order book/register.
4. That some private parties applied to the Government for grant of land lease in order to enable them to apply for and obtain mining lease to undertake quarrying operations in the said land. The issue as to whether any such lease of the said land or part thereof at all could be granted by the Government has been processed by more than one Department of the Government. That no lease of the land could have been granted unless the same was released from the prohibitory order book/register. That under Section 14 of the Land Reforms Act, the lands vested in the Government under the said Act is required to be allotted for use of house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other persons owning no house or house-sites or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dependent on agriculture for agriculture or for purposes of ancillary thereto. Sub-section (6) of Section 14, however, enables the Government that notwithstanding anything in Section 14, the Government may lease out any land vesting in them under the Act for such purposes and on terms and conditions as may be specified by them.
5. The Government having examined the request of the private parties and having considered the proposals of the Collector, Prakasham District and the Commissioner of Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, directed an extent of Acs.25-00 of surplus land taken over possession under the provisions of 'the Act out of the said lands "be leased out to private persons through the Department of Mines and Geology for mining purposes subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed with the approval of the Government and further subject to condition that the lease was liable to be cancelled as and when the land is required by the Government for a public purpose". The Government specified the land rent to be paid to the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 876 Revenue (Land Reforms) Department dated 3-6-1989. The Department of Mines and Geology thereafter granted the mining lease in the subject area in favour of one P. Rama Rao. It is unnecessary to notice further details as regards the dispute between the said P. Rama Rao and one M/s. Victorian Granite Private Limited relating to the grant of mining lease.
6. That in the year 1991, four applications by M/s. Pallava Granite Industries (India) Private Limited, M/s. Upendra Granites, M/s. Acropolis Granites Limited and M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited (writ petitioners) were received by the Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for grant of lease of land in the said survey number. The Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 1290, Revenue (L.Ref.) Department, dated 27-8-1991, having examined the proposals of the authorities including the Director of Mines and Geology, directed grant of lease of Acs. 15-00 each in favour of the applicants "for mining purposes". The Government further directed that the terms and conditions of the land leased out to those four firms shall be the same as approved by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 876 Revenue, dated 3-6-1989 subject to further modification that the leases shall be for a period of ten years and the lessees shall pay Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred only) per acre per annum for the first five years and @ Rs. 900/-(Rupees nine hundred only) per acre per annum for the remaining period of five years for the land leased out. The contents of G.O. Rt. No. 1290 dated 27-8-1991 are self-explanatory. The District Collector, Prakasham, has been directed to execute the lease deed in favour of each lessee but no lease deeds as such were executed, so far in favour of any of the writ petitioners.
7. Be it as it may, that a public interest petition W.P. No. 2356 of 1991 was filed in this Court inter alia alleging mala fides against the then Chief Minister in the matter of grant of lease in favour of the writ petitioners' firms. This Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition rejecting the plea of mala fides. But even while the writ petition was pending, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 1361 dated 11-9-1991 cancelling the orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue Department, dated 27-8-1991. M/s. Rita Industries, one of the writ petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 12386 of 1991 challenging the said cancellation on various grounds including on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 18-10-1996. The District Collector was accordingly directed to execute a lease deed in favour of M/s. Rita Industries for an extent of Acs. 15-00 out of the said land as per G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue Department, dated 27-8-1991 and further directed the Director of Mines and Geology to dispose of the application filed by the firm for grant of mining lease in accordance with law. The State Government filed writ appeal No. 672 of 1997 against the judgment of the learned single Judge and the said writ appeal was rejected with an observation that the Government is not disabled from taking steps to cancel G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue Department, dated 27-8-1991, if such right existed in them in accordance with law.
8. That a contempt case has been filed complaining of non-implementation of the judgment. At that stage, the Government issued show-cause notices not only to M/s. Rita Industries but also other beneficiaries under G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue Department, dated 27-8-1991 requiring them to show-cause why the orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1290 should not be cancelled. The show-cause notices so issued were challenged by filing W.P. No. 19252 of 1997 and this Court by order dated 14-8-1997 allowed the writ petition and set aside the show-cause notices on the ground that it did not disclose the reasons and granted liberty to issue fresh show-cause notices giving reasons and proceed, if so desired. That show-cause notice dated 21-2-1998 has been issued and the same were again challenged in W.P. No. 6098 of 1998.
9. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 267 Industries and Commerce (M-II) Department, dated 27-9-1997, wherein it is ordered that an extent of Acs.61-50 cents of land out of the said land be reserved for exploitation by APMDC excluding existing quarry leases with immediate effect. The said decision of the Government is challenged in a batch of writ petitions out of which the present writ appeals arise.
10. The Governmental order is mainly challenged on the ground that the Government, if at all, can exercise the power under Rule 9(A)(1) of the A.P. Miner Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966 (for short 'the rules') after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government as mandated by Section 17(A)(2) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, inasmuch as no such approval was obtained the G.Os. are illegal and void.
11. The contempt case filed by M/s. Rita Industries was disposed of with the observation that the order of the Directorate of Mines and Geology, rejecting the quarry lease application through proceedings dated 29-9-1997 amounts to disobeying the Court's direction and accordingly further directed the Directorate of Mines to implement the order in W.P. No. 12386 of 1991 on or before 14-11-1997. The Director filed contempt appeal in C.A. No. 8 of 1997 and a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27-2-1998 set aside the order in the contempt case by giving liberty to M/s. Rita Industries to file a revision petition challenging the rejection order dated 29-9-1997 passed by the Directorate of Mines and Geology. The revision petition filed by M/s. Rita Industries was rejected by order dated 2-9-2000.
12. It would be appropriate to recapitulate that the Director of Mines and Geology rejected the mining lease application of M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited vide orders dated 29-9-1997 during the pendency of C.C. No. 769 of 1997. It is also necessary to make a note that M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited submitted its explanation on 27-12-1997 to the show-cause notice dated 31-11-1997 and the Government vide G.O. No. 280 dated 22-8-1998 cancelled the lease of land granted vide G.O. Rt. No. 1290 dated 27-8-1991. Questioning the same, Rita Industries filed W.P. No. 6573 of 1998. M/s. Rita Industries also filed W.P. No. 20562 of 2000 assailing the revisional orders passed by the Government dated 2-9-2000 upholding the rejection of application for granting mining lease.
13. It is very pertinent to note that the Director of Mines and Geology vide his proceedings dated 23-8-1997 even while the C.C. No. 769 of 1997 was pending reported to the Government that granite available in the area is of unique nature and command premium price in international market and it would be in the public interest if the area is reserved for exploitation in the public sector. The Government promptly acted on the said report and accordingly issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 267 dated 27-9-1997 reserving the said land for undertaking mining operations by APMDC excluding the existing quarry leases with immediate effect. The notification has been published in G.O. Ms. No. 268 dated 29-9-1997 declaring that an extent of Acs.61-50 cents of land in Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, which is not covered by any quarry leases be reserved with immediate effect for exploitation by APMDC, a State Government Corporation, in public interest.
14. The said G.Os. were impugned in the writ petitions on various grounds inter alia contending that the writ petitioners were singled out and discriminated by the Government in the matter of granting quarry leases. That the Government without applying its mind in proper perspective passed the impugned order simply reiterating the reasons assigned by the Director of Mines and Geology. The very proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology was an off shoot of one of the writ petitioners moving this Court to punish him for having committed contempt of this Court inasmuch as he deliberately and willfully refused to implement the directions of this Court. It was a colourable exercise of power in a vindictive and arbitrary manner. The proceedings of the District Collector dated 10-1-1997 expressing his no objection for granting of quarry lease to the petitioners and the recommendations made by the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings and the earlier Governmental order were altogether ignored by the Government while deciding to reserve the said land for undertaking mining operations by APMDC. It was also contended that Government, if at all, could have exercised its power under Rule 9(1)(A) of the Rules after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government as mandated by Section 17-A(2) of the Act, 1957, since no such prior approval was obtained, the impugned G.O. Nos. 267 and 268, dated 27-9-1997 and 29-9-1997 respectively were liable to be quashed. The impugned Governmental orders are vitiated with malice in fact and in law, was the submission made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners. The lease granted in favour of one P. Rama Rao, for an extent of Acs.25-00 in the same survey number enabling him to quarry black granite continues to be in operation as it is being renewed from time to time. The reservation for exploitation by public sector is a make believe affair and invented only to defeat the orders passed by this Court from time to time.
15. The learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter found that the Government suddenly decided to earmark the said land in favour of the Government undertaking even without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. That it was during the pendency of the writ petitions the State Government realised its folly and wrote letter dated 3-7-2000 seeking post approval without disclosing the true and correct facts. The learned Single Judge found that the State Government could not have reserved any area in favour of any of the Government Corporation without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. The learned Single Judge, in the result, found that the Government of India Memorandum dated 29-10-1999 granting approval subject to the conditions mentioned therein is not a valid approval. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed the G.O.Nos. 267 and 268 dated 27th and 29th September, 1997, respectively. The show-cause notices issued were also quashed. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed the State Government to consider the mining lease applications of the writ petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
16. Sri T. Ananta Babu, learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the conclusions of the learned Single Judge vide G.O. Nos. 267 and 268 is bad for absence of prior approval of the Central Government is not correct. The learned Advocate-General further submitted that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the distinction between the approval simplicitor and prior approval. The contention was that the approval need not precede the order of reservation. It was further contended that subsequent approval granted by the Central Government was quashed by the learned Single Judge without any reasonable justification. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the State Government did not furnish full information to the Central Government and had the State Government furnished full information the Central Government may not have granted the approval is based on no pleadings, it is a mere surmise. The State Government placed all the relevant facts before the Central Government enabling it to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Neither the decision of the State Government in reserving the land in question for exploitation in public sector nor the decision of the Central Government granting approval is vitiated for any reason whatsoever.
17. Sri E. Manohar and Sri S. Venkat Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners reiterated their submissions made before the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sequence of events themselves reveal lack of bona fides on the part of the State Government reserving the said land for undertaking mining operation by a public sector company. The decision of the Central Government is vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind. That the State Government willfully and deliberately withheld the complete information from the Central Government and accordingly obtained approval after the State Government reserving the land in question for exploitation in public sector. The whole decision of the Government was based upon the report submitted by the Director of Mines and Geology which itself was an exercise undertaken by him to wreck vengeance against the writ petitioners as one of them had initiated contempt proceedings against him. The decision of both the State Government and Central Government is ultra vires.
The question relating to the validity of G.O. Ms. Nos. 267 and 268 dated 27th and 29th September, 1997, and Memo No. 4/(3)/97-M-VI, Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines Department, dated 29th October, 1999.
18. It is totally unnecessary to consider the question relating to the validity of G.O. Ms. Nos. 267 and 268 dated 27th and 29th September, 1997, respectively, in view of the subsequent decision of the Central Government granting approval vide letter dated 29th September, 1999. The State Government having obtained the prior approval of the Central Government issued a fresh notification in G.O. Ms. No. 72 dated 14-2-2002, reserving the said land for exploitation mineral wealth by APMDC.
19. The question that falls for consideration is whether the decision of the Central Government in granting approval as prayed for by the State Government under Section 17-A(2) of the Act suffers from any legal infirmities.
20. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate-General that Section 17-A(2) of the Act does not speak of prior approval. The contention was that the Parliament never regarded the approval as a condition precedent for reserving any area by the State Government for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government Company j or Corporation owned or controlled by it. The learned Advocate-General invited our attention to Sections 4(3) and 5(1) of the same Act and the proviso to Sections 7(2), 8(2) and 11(4), where the expressions such as "prior consultation with the Central Government, "previous approval" are used. The contention of the learned Advocate-General was that the Parliament was fully aware of the distinction between the "previous approval" and "simple approval", and wherever it desired that the approval should be a condition precedent, it used the expression "previous approval" in several provisions. In the absence of word "previous" in Section 17(A)(2) which, was introduced by a subsequent amendment, cannot be treated as unintentional or insignificant.
21. The Supreme Court in Gem Granites v. State of Tamilnadu, , had an occasion to consider the constitutional validity of Tamilnadu Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, as amended, the rule provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the said rules, on and from 10-6-1992, no lease for quarrying black, red, pink, grey, green, white or other coloured or multi-coloured granites or any rock suitable for use as ornamental and decorative stones shall be granted to any person. It further provided that the State Government themselves may engage in quarrying the said granites or any rock suitable for use as ornamental and decorative stones or may grant the same to a State Government or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government. The rule was challenged as bad in law on the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 17(A) of the Act. It was an admitted position that the approval of the Central Government was not obtained to Rule 8-C as on 10-6-1992 either before or after that date. The Supreme Court observed that insofar as the reservation is for State Government companies and Corporations, it is hit by the provisions of Section 17-A(2) because, "for such reservation, the approval of the Central Government is required and has not been obtained." The Court took the view that Rule 8-C was intended to reserve the quarrying of the said granites and rock for the State Government and for the State Government Companies and Corporations. Since such reservation was made without the approval of the Central Government as is required, the rule was declared to be bad in law and was struck down insofar as it permitted the State Government to grant renew, lease in favour of the State Government Companies and Corporations to quarry the granite and rock mentioned therein. That a reading of the judgment would make it clear that even a statutory rule framed by the Government in exercise of its rule making power, intending to make reservation of areas for undertaking mining operations in favour of the State Government Companies or Corporations was struck down on the ground that such a rule was framed without the approval of the Central Government as is required under Section 17-A(2) of the Act.
22. The letter dated 13th February, 1998, addressed by the State Government in furtherance of its earlier letter dated 24-10-1997 requesting reservation of area for undertaking mining operations by APMDC, is clear in which it is mentioned that "the State Government have been advised that prior permission of the Government of India under Section 17-A(2) is necessary for reserving even a minor mineral for exploitation by the State Government undertaking." The letter itself makes a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gem Granites (supra). The State Government reiterated its request vide letter dated 24-10-1997 requiring the Central Government to accord approval under Sub-section (2) of Section 17-A of the Act to the State Government to reserve the area of Acs.61-50 cents in Survey No. 55/ 5 of R.L. Puram Village for exploitation of Black granite by the State Government through the Corporation.
23. In our considered opinion, Section 17-A(2) of the Act applies whenever an area is sought to be reserved by the State Government for undertaking mining operations exclusively through a Government Company or Corporation, such reservation cannot be made without the approval of the Central Government. That whenever such an area is notified the details of the mineral or minerals in respect of which it is notified also must be stated in the notification.
24. The learned Advocate-General placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd., , in support of his submission that the distinction made by the Parliament between 'approval simplicitor' and 'prior approval' in the several provisions of the same Act cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court while considering the distinction between "special permission" and "general permission", 'previous approval" or "prior approval" held that "we are conscious that the word "prior" or "previous" may be implied if the contextual situation or the object and design of the legislation demands it, we find no such compelling circumstances justifying reading any such implication into Section 29(1) of the Act." In our considered opinion, the decision is not an authority for the proposition that unless the expression "prior approval" is used in the statute it must always be read that prior approval is not necessary and approval can be obtained at any time by way of ratification. On the other hand the Supreme Court observed that the word "prior" may be implied if the contextual situation demands it.
25. Section 17-A(2) inserted by Central Act 37 of 1986 into the main Act forms part of package of two Sections dealing with special powers of Central Government to undertake prospecting or mining operations in certain cases. The provisions must receive strict construction and so construed the implication is obvious and apparent from the plain language employed in the statute. It means there can be no reservation of any area for undertaking mining operations through Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government without the prior approval of the Central Government. The expression used "with the approval of the Central Government", is so significant and a plain reading of it makes it clear that no area can be reserved by the State Government for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it without the approval of the Central Government. The provision is special in its nature and the requirement of approval is mandatory.
26. The provisions of the Act impose a duty and command the Central Government to ensure conservation and development of minerals and their prudent exploitation in public interest. Public interest is the paramount consideration. The Act intends that the Union Government should take under its control the regulation and development of minerals to the extent provided for under the provisions of the Act. It is well settled that meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained not only from the phraseology of the provisions, but also by considering its nature, design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it, in one way or the other.
27. In Banwarilal Agarwal v. State of Bihar, , the question involved was, whether Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952, requiring the Central Government to consult every mining board before framing regulation was mandatory; and it was held that having regard to the language, the object of providing for consultation, the constitution of the mining boards and the provision for making regulations in cases of emergency without such consultation, the provision of Section 59(3) was mandatory. The Supreme Court observed:
"An examination of all the relevant circumstances, viz., the language used, the scheme of the legislation, the benefit to the public on insisting on strict compliance as well as the risks to public interest on insistence on such compliance leads us to the conclusion that the legislative intent was to insist on these provisions for consultation with the Mining Board as a prerequisite for the validity of the regulations."
28. That at any rate, it is unnecessary to further dilate on this subject since the State Government now obtained approval of the Central Government and accordingly issued a fresh notification reserving the area in question for undertaking mining operations through APMDC. The order of the Government came into effect from 26th February, 2002, after its publication in the Gazette. The requirement of prior approval required to be obtained is fully met.
29. The correspondence between the State Government and the Central Government as is evident from the record discloses that the State Government having regard to the writ petitions filed impugning the validity of G.O. Nos. 267 and 268 itself, sought for prior approval of the Central Government under Section 17-A(2) of the Act for reservation of the area for undertaking mining operations by its Corporation. The reservation shall come into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
30. That it is precisely for the said reason, the Central Government in its impugned Memo dated 29th October, 1999, observed that G.O. Ms. No. 268 had been issued by the State Government without obtaining the approval of the Central Government as is required under Section 17-A(2) of the Act and hence it is not a valid notification.
31. It is not unreasonable to read Section 17-A(2) as expressing by implication, the parliament's intention that whenever the State Government intends to make reservation of any area for undertaking mining operations by a Company or Corporation owned or controlled by it; may do so, only with the prior approval of the Central Government.
32. Now we shall proceed to examine as to whether the decision of the Central Government in granting approval as prayed for by the State Government suffers from any errors ?
33. It is just and necessary to take into consideration the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the grounds raised and the manner in which the decision of the Central Government is attacked by the writ petitioners. That according to the writ petitioners the Central Government has passed the order mechanically without application of its mind and accordingly accepted the proposals submitted by the State Government and that the Central Government failed to verify the truth or otherwise of the statement of the State Government. The State Government did not send any supporting documentary material that the 4th respondent was a profit making body and that it was equipped with necessary expertise and machinery to undertake mining of granite in a systematic and scientific manner.
34. The Central Government did not file any counter-affidavit nor any records have been produced.
35. But what are those factors that are required to be taken into consideration by the Central Government while considering the request of the State Government to grant approval for undertaking prospecting and mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government ?
36. The power to reserve any area not already held under any prospecting licence or mining lease for undertaking prospecting or mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government vest in the State Government. Its proposals are required to be notified in the Official Gazette specifying the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas are proposed to be reserved. However, such reservations of any area can be made by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The decision required to be taken by the Central Government while considering the proposal does not involve any adjudicatory process. It is not as if the Central Government is required to resolve any dispute as such. The Central Government is required to notice the nature of the request made by the State Government seeking approval and as to satisfy itself that the State Government intends to undertake prospecting or mining operations through a Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government. That private individuals seeking mining leases even if their applications were pending at the relevant time when the Central Government is seized of the request made by the State Government to grant approval are not required to be heard. There is no dispute that the APMDC is a Corporation fully owned by the State Government and functions under its control.
37. In State of Tamilnadu v. Hind Stone, , the Supreme Court observed that "the public interest which induced Parliament to make the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, "has naturally to be the paramount consideration in all matters concerning the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. Parliament's policy is clearly discernible from the provisions of the Act. It is the conservation and the prudent and discriminating exploitation of minerals, with a view to secure maximum benefit to the community. There are dear sign posts to lead and guide the subordinate legislating authority in the matter of the making of rules." (Emphasis is of ours).
38. While considering the constitutional validity of Rule 8-C of the Rules of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, it is observed:
"Exploitation of minerals by the private and/ or the public sector is contemplated. If in the pursuit of the avowed policy of the Act, it is thought exploitation by the public sector is best and wisest in the case of a particular mineral and, in consequence the authority competent to make the subordinate legislation makes a rule banning private exploitation of such mineral, which was hitherto permitted, we are unable to see any change of policy merely because what was previously permitted is no longer permitted."
It is further observed:
"Surely, in the case of a scarce mineral, to permit exploitation by the State or its agency and to prohibit exploitation by private agencies is the most effective method of conservation and prudent exploitation."
39. That Section 15 of the Act confers power upon the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concession in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith, we cannot lose sight of this aspect of the matter while construing the nature, scope and amplitude of the Central Government's power to grant approval by considering the proposals of the State Government for reservation of area containing minor minerals. The policy of reservation obviously is to ensure prudent and proper exploitation of mineral wealth.
40. The impugned decision of the Central Government is self-explanatory. It had referred to the letters addressed by the State Government from time to time in which it is inter alia stated that the APMDC is a profit making body and is equipped with necessary expertise and machinery to undertake mining of granite in a systematic and scientific manner, to the best advantage of the State Government. It had also understood that the mineral granite in the said land is Black in colour and suitable for polishing. The mineral is rare and unique deposit in the world because of its colour mixed with yellow crystals, it is known as "Galaxy Granite" and it has good demand in the foreign market. The proposals to set a granite park for creating a Granite Park, a much profitable one had also been taken into consideration. The impugned memo itself reveals that the Central Government had considered the proposals made by the State Government and was in agreement with the recommendations of the State Government. That all relevant factors have been taken into consideration.
41. The contention that the proposals were mooted by the State Government only in order to deprive the legitimate claim of the writ petitioners to obtain quarry leases is totally unacceptable. The proposal was made by the State Government. The writ petitioners have not impleaded any particular authority who is alleged to have acted arbitrarily and in a mala fide manner in submitting proposal to the Central Government seeking its approval under Section 17(A)(2) of the Act. No mala fides can be attributed to the whole of the State Government as such. It is a different matter, if the action of any particular officer or authority is challenged on the ground of mala fides. Such is not the case on hand. It is not as if the State Government with a view to favour any other individuals had chosen to act in the manner depriving any legitimate claim of the writ petitioners. The proposal of the Government is to reserve the area for undertaking mining operations by the Corporation owned and controlled by it. The decision to reserve the area for undertaking mining operations through the APMDC obviously was in public interest. The decision of the Central Government granting approval subject to the conditions mentioned therein sub-serves the public interest.
42. We do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the decision of the Central Government.
43. That after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 72, Industries and Commerce (Mines II), dated 14-2-2002 and got the same published in the State Gazette dated 26-2-2002. The notification published in the Official Gazette is after the approval by the Central Government. The reservation of the area for undertaking mining operations through the APMDC, which is admittedly owned and controlled by the State Government, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmities.
W.A. No. 1016 of 200244. In view of our decision in the batch of writ appeals preferred by the State as well as the Corporation, no further cause in Writ Petition No. 20562 of 2000 filed by M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited, challenging the decision of the State Government in Memo No. 6827/M.II(1)/98-13 dated 2-9-2000, survives requiring any adjudication.
45. W.A. No. 1016 of 2002 filed by the State Government is accordingly allowed.
Issue relating to the validity of the decision taken by the Government to cancel land leases:
46. Now, we shall take up the issue relating to validity of G.O. Rt. No. 280 Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, dated 20-2-1998 and the show-cause notices dated 21-2-1998 proposing to cancel the land leases. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue (L. Ref.) Department, dated 27-8-1991 decided to grant land lease to the four concerns referred to supra for a period of ten years but within a period of less than a month, the said G.O. Rt. No. 1290 has been cancelled by subsequent G.O. Rt. No. 1361, Revenue (L. Ref.) Department, dated 11-9-1991. The Collector, Prakasam District, did not take any further steps pursuant to the Government's decision to grant lease of the lands in terms of G.O.Rt.No. 1290 dated 27-8-1991. The possession of the land was not delivered to any one of them. No lease deed as such incorporating the terms and conditions has been executed in favour of any of the parties. That out of the four concerns only M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited challenged the validity of G.O. Rt. No. 1361 dated 11-9-1991 and the same was set aside by this Court to the extent it related to M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited on the sole ground that the principles of natural justice were violated. There was a further direction to enter into a lease deed with M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited in respect of Acs. 15-00 of land. The separate application filed by M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited for grant of quarry lease was directed to be transmitted to the Director of Mines and Geology who was to dispose of the same in accordance with law. But the fact remains that even in the case of M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited in view of subsequent development, no lease deed was actually executed nor possession was handed over to it.
47. The decision of the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 280 Revenue (Land Reforms) Department, dated 20-2-1998, deciding to cancel the order issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue (L.Ref:) Department, dated 27-8-1991, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring our interference. The subsequent developments noticed herein above resulting in reservation of the entire extent of the land in respect of which the writ petitioners are claiming lease of the Government land, no relief could be granted compelling the State to execute the lease deeds. The whole issue as to whether any lease at all could be granted to the writ petitioners in order to enable them to apply for and obtain quarry leases has become academic in view of the Government's decision to reserve the area for undertaking mining operations through the APMDC, which is owned and controlled by the State Government. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to interfere with the decision of the Government cancelling the lease in favour of M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited vide G.O. Rt. No. 280, Revenue (L.Ref.) Department, dated 20-2-1998.
48. For the very same reasons, the show-cause notices issued to the other petitioners proposing to cancel the lease also cannot be interfered with by this Court, at this stage. No explanations need be filed by the writ petitioners since the whole exercise has become an academic one. No useful purpose would be served by directing the Government to consider the replies, if any, filed by the other petitioners to the show-cause notices. No lease could be granted in favour of any private individual as long as the area is reserved for undertaking mining operations by APMDC.
49. The learned Judge quashed the show-cause notices and the G.O. Rt. No. 280 dated 20-2-1998 under mistaken impression that the land lease sanctioned by the Revenue Department vide G.O. Rt. No. 1290 dated 27-8-1991 were leases granted under Miner Mineral Concession Rules enabling them to undertake mining operations. The learned Judge lost sight of the distinction between the quarry lease that can only be granted by the Mines Department in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Rules framed by the Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of Act, 1957, and grant of land lease simplicitor. The Government under G.O. Rt. No. 1290 dated 27-8-1991 passed orders merely enabling the District Collector, Prakasam, to enter into lease deeds with the writ petitioners, of course, in order to enable them to apply for and obtain quarry leases. That fact cannot be denied. But the same cannot be equated with that of a grant of quarry lease in favour of the petitioners.
50. That any interference by this Court, at this stage, would amount to extending the period of original lease that was granted in favour of the writ petitioners by the Government under G.O. Rt. No. 1290 Revenue (L.Ref.) Department, dated 27-8-1991. We cannot exercise our discretion for extension of period of lease particularly on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and the subsequent events and developments that have taken place after the decision to grant lease of lands.
51. The decision in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P., , upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners renders no assistance and supports the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the Court. In the very said decision, it is observed by the Supreme Court that:
"A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening events i.e., the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There may be other circumstances, which render it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgment. Third-party interests may have been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events happening in-between."
It is further observed that:
"The relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief, the Court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong complained against would not have been done to him."
52. We fail to appreciate as to how the said decision helps the petitioners. Here is a case, on account of subsequent development of reserving the area for undertaking mining operations through the APMDC which is owned and controlled by the State Government, no land is available as on the date, so that a direction may be issued to the State Government to consider the case of the writ petitioners for extension of land lease. Even if the cancellation of the lease was in violation of the principles of natural justice, no useful purpose will be served by directing the State Government to reconsider the matter. It would be a useless formality. It is for that reason we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners.
Principles of Natural Justice:
53. That in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action unless the decision taken had resulted in any prejudice.
54. Whether any particular principles of natural justice would be applicable to a particular situation has to be judged in the light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
55. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., , the Supreme Court held that "if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice."
56. In the instant case, no further decision can be taken either by the State Government or the Collector to either renew the leases or grant further leases in view of the reservation of the land for exploitation by the APMDC, which is admittedly a Government owned Corporation and functions under its control.
57. The present case is one such case, where no relief could be granted to the writ petitioners. The intervening events i.e. the events between the commencement of litigation and the decision are of such a nature on account of which no relief could be granted to the writ petitioners even if the petitioners are found to be entitled to grant of some relief cannot be granted at this stage since the whole claim of the writ petitioner is rendered redundant by lapse of time and the subsequent developments.
58. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 280 dated 20-2-1998 rejecting the request for renewal of the land lease to one of the writ petitioners. Likewise it is not possible to interdict the very show-cause notices, which are now rendered to be useless.
59. In the result, the batch of writ appeals preferred by the State as well as the Corporation (Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation) are accordingly allowed. The Judgment under appeal is accordingly set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
W.A. No. 2155 of 200360. The subject-matter that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is also covered by our decision in the connected matters upholding the decision of the State Government reserving the land for mining operations by the APMDC. The appellant herein filed W.P. No. 11825 of 1998 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to release the land in Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District, admeasuring Acs.61-5 cents from the prohibitory order book/register; (b) declaring the action of the Respondents 2, 3 and 5 in not granting mining lease in favour of the petitioner over the said land as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory; (c) declaring G.O. Ms. No. 267, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 27-9-1997, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P.M.M.C. Rules and set aside the same; and (d) direct the Respondents 2, 3, 5 and 7 to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner over the said area.
61. The whole of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is based on the allegation that he had filed application dated 11-9-1993 seeking grant of quarry lease for an extent of Acs.300-00 in Survey No. 55 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village and the application was found to be in order. He was informed that only an extent of Acs.86-00 of land in the said survey number was available to be granted on lease and on the strength of such information he voluntarily reduced the area from that of Acs.300-00 to Acs.86-00. No order was passed and the applications stood rejected through the operation of deeming clause. He filed revision dated 11-12-1985 before the Government under Rule 39-A of A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966. The revision was allowed. His application was the first in point of time in respect of Acs.86-00 in Survey No. 55 applied for grant of lease. The case set up by him is that even while his application was pending the respondents granted mining lease in favour of one P. Rama Rao, over an area of Acs.25-00 in the same survey number. He filed W.P. No. 12119 of 1990 and the same was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of lease in respect of Acs.86-00 excluding the area over which mining lease was granted to the said Rama Rao. The order was not implemented and the appellant was constrained to file a contempt case in C.C. No. 1038 of 1997. The contempt case was closed on the strength of the statement made by the respondents that the mining lease could not be granted in respect of balance Acs.61.55 cents of land in favour of the appellant only because the land was recorded in the prohibitory order book/register and the same has not been released.
62. But within three days after the orders of this Court in C.C. No. 1038 of 1997, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 267, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 27-9-1997 reserving the said Acs.61-50 cents of land in favour of APMDC. It is under those circumstances, he filed the writ petitioner seeking reliefs hereinabove.
63. In view of our decision upholding the State Government's action in reserving the said land in favour of the APMDC for exploitation of mineral, no further cause in this case survives and no relief could be granted to the appellant. In the circumstances, it would be totally unnecessary to go into the question whether the appellant has got any preferential right over all other applicants including some of the writ petitioners in this batch of cases.
64. In view of our decision, no land as such is available as at present for mining by any private individuals and the question of consideration of the case of the appellant either for grant of fresh land lease or quarry lease enabling him to undertake any quarry operations as such, does not arise. The writ appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
W.A. No. 764 of 200165. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Director of Mines and Geology preferred this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4571 of 2000 dated 18-9-2000 whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the authority to reconsider the application dated 2-8-1985 of the petitioner seeking grant of quarry lease in respect of the same land in Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District.
66. The case of the writ petitioner is that his application being the earliest in point of time was required to be considered by the competent authority to grant quarry lease in an extent of Acs.108-00 in the same survey number. But the Government having granted lease in favour of one P. Rama Rao, granted lease in his favour only for an extent of Acs.3-00 on the basis of the application dated 2-8-1985 ignoring his first application dated 17-5-1985. It is unnecessary to go into the merits and as to the validity of the order passed by the Government in Memo No. 21002/MII(1)/97-3, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 11-1-1999 whereunder the request of the writ petitioner has been rejected for the reason that no land as at present is available for granting any quarry leases as such in favour of any private individual since we have upheld the order of reservation of the entire remaining land in favour of APMDC for exploitation of the mineral wealth.
67. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
W.P. No. 9969 of 200268. In this writ petition, the petitioners prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to grant lease in favour of third parties including the 8th respondent in connection with Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District, which includes Acs. 15-00 of land belonging to the petitioners without considering the application of the 1st petitioner firm despite the orders of this Court as illegal, unjust, discriminatory, actuated by mala fides and bias. The petitioners accordingly prayed to grant appropriate consequential direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the 1st petitioner firm and pass appropriate orders thereon.
69. The Petitioners 2 to 4 claim to be the owners of the land situated in Survey No. 55/5 of Rajupalem Lakshmipuram Village. The ownership claim is based upon an alleged purchase of the land in public auction conducted by the Government in the year 1970. They claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the land. Petitioners 2 to 4 entered into a partnership with the 1st petitioner of which the deponent of the affidavit is Managing Partner.
70. It is averred that after knowing the availability of Black granite in the said land, the 1st petitioner made an application on 26-2-2001 for grant of prospecting licences for quarrying granite by paying the necessary amount apart from the application fee. The application has not been considered on the ground that the entire land in Survey No. 55/5 admeasuring Acs.86-50 cents is entered into prohibitory order book as per the orders dated 8-8-1988 of the Collector.
71. Be it as it may, the petitioners filed O.S. No. 138 of 1992 on the file of learned H Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, for permanent injunction restraining the Mandal Revenue Officer, the District Collector and Assistant Director of Mines and Geology "from leasing out the suit schedule property as shown in the plaint plan to others without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs' and for other reliefs." The Trial Court decreed the suit. The authorities preferred appeal in A.S. No. 112 of 2000 and the same was dismissed for default. As is evident from the record, a petition was filed to set aside the default order. That many applications filed by the authorities including to condone delay petition in filing the restoration petition itself are stated to be pending and under consideration of the Court about which we do not propose to express any opinion whatsoever. That ultimately the prayer of the writ petitioner in the writ petition which we have noticed is to consider the application of the 1st petitioner firm for granting quarry lease in respect of Acs. 15-00 of land in Survey No. 55/5 of R.L. Puram Village. No relief could be granted to the petitioners in view of the reservation order which we have upheld in the batch of cases. That no land as such in Survey No. 55/5 of R.L. Puram Village is available as at present for quarrying to be granted in favour of any private individuals.
72. In view of our decision upholding the order of reservation enabling the APMDC to undertake mining operations in the very same land, neither the petitioner nor the 8th respondents are entitled for consideration of any of their applications and no quarry lease shall be granted in their favour. No relief as such could be granted to the petitioners in this petition.
73. However, we may hasten to add that the applications preferred by the authorities in A.S. No. 112 of 2000 shall have to be considered on their own merits uninfluenced by the observations if any made in this order.
74. The writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
75. In the result, all the writ appeals preferred by the State as well as APMDC are accordingly allowed and all the writ petitions and the writ appeals preferred by the individuals are dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.