Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs The State Of Ap on 14 June, 2021
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.5066 of 2019
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the memo no.11031/M.III(02)/2013, dt.23.5.2018 and the further Memo No.11031.M.III(02)/2013, dt.23.01.2019 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential orders thereupon of the 4th respondent are without jurisdiction, arbitrary and beyond the powers vested in it under the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made there under and set aside the same; by further declaring that the 1st respondent is not empowered to invoke Rule 12(s) of Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons and Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and the consequential orders passed thereupon are null and void.
2. Heard Sri A.Ravindra Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri W.B.Srinivas, Advocate on record for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Siva Raj Srinivas, Advocate for 5th respondent.
3. As per the averments in the affidavit, the petitioner company i.e. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (for short RINL) popularly known as 'Vizag Steel plant' is a leading Central PSU under the Ministry of Steel is the first shore based integrated steel plant in the country. Petitioner Company is a Government of India Public Sector undertaking registered under the Companies Act 1956. The Vizag Steel Plant known for its quality and customer service and it is a market leader in long products with a share of about 10% and it has been supplying various grades of steel for construction of projects of national importance which include metros, power sector, bridges, nuclear complexes and several others. The petitioner 2 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 company in short known as RINL-VSP has exported finished products to countries like USA, UAE, Thailand, Bangladesh, Nepal, Srilanka etc and its products are made from 100% original steel and maintaining stringent tolerances both in chemistry and physical properties. It has wide marketing network spread across the country. The basic raw material required for making steel/pig iron is iron ore, limestone, dolomite, manganese, quartzite/sand, coking coal and boiler coal. For the above said raw materials the only captive source for the petitioner for getting the blast furnace grade limestone is Jaggayyapeta limestone mine, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh granted mining lease to Steel Authority of India (SAIL) for an extent of 2195 hectares (1800 hectares reserve forest land and 395 hectares private land). RINL was formed as separate registered company on 18.02.1982 and had taken over all assets and liabilities of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant from SAIL. SAIL had also acquired 395 hectares of private land in Mukteswarapuram, K.Agraharam and Budawada villages, Jaggayyapeta Taluk, Krishna District by paying the then market price through proceedings of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and the said extent of 395 hectares of land was handed over to RINL. Thus, the Union of India acquired the title of the property of 395 hectares situated at K.Agraharam, Budawada and Mukteswarapuram villages. In view of the same, the Union of India is the absolute owner and possessor of the said property.
4. Infact the petitioner initially in 1980 was granted lease for mining of limestone in an extent of 1800 hectares of land situated in Budawada village, Jaggayyapeta Mandal, Krishna District which land falls in the forest area. Apart from the said 1800 hectares of land, the petitioner was also granted lease for excavation of lime stone in the above said owned patta land of 395 hectares. So, accordingly a total of 2195 hectares of mining 3 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has obtained environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India towards operation of the mining activity. Subsequently in the year 2000, when the lease was being renewed the lease area was reduced from 1800 hectares to 900 hectares + 395 hectares of patta land by the 1st respondent. Thus, now the petitioner holds mining lease permission over an extent of 1295 hectares of land for a period for 20 years i.e. from 2000 to 2020. As the mining lease of Jaggayyapeta granted before the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, Hence, it is deemed to be renewed by another 10 years i.e. up to the year 2030. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also developed a township within the leased area wherein about 200 families of its employees who work in the mines are living. The petitioner has been mining in the above said 900 hectares of forest area for excavating the limestone. In the patta land, the residential township was developed within the lease area and the balance area kept for green belt area in compliance with the condition in Environmental Clearance/CFO and for future strategic development plan of the petitioner company. As RINL is having phase wise expansion plans and it being the only captive source of limestone, the requirement of limestone quantity may also need to be expanded to meet the requirement of the petitioner RINL, Hence, the patta land is kept for its future strategic development zone by RINL.
5. While that being the situation, the 5th respondent who has a cement factory at Jayanthipuram, K.R.Nagar, Jaggayyapeta, holds a mining lease for limestone over an extent of 160 hectares in the reserve forest area of Budawada village, granted to it vide G.O.Ms.No.291, Industries and Commerce Department, dt.30.10.2008 for a period of 20 years. After that the 5th respondent approached the 1st respondent requesting permission for 4 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 having access corridor to transport its excavated limestone mineral from its Budawada mining lease to their cement factory at Jayanthipuram through the mining lease area held by the petitioner. The 5th respondent has made a request stating that there is no alternate approach to their factory and also stated that the mining lease area held by 5th respondent is surrounded by mining lease area held by the petitioner and the approach road for access for transport of 1.6 kms length is situated in the North-East side of its lease area which is surrounded by forest lease area held by Jaypee Balaji Cements after which the patta land area of petitioner is present and the proposed corridor access road of 600 mts length and 30 mts width through the mining lease area held by the petitioner is the only accessible way for its transportation of limestone. Pursuant to the said request made by the 5th respondent, a protracted correspondence took place and the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh has made a letter to the petitioner on 20.9.2014 requesting the petitioner to participate in the discussions. The representatives of the petitioner and 5th respondent attended the meeting with the Director of Mines and Geology held on 27.9.2014. Again on 17.10.2014, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh putting forth its comments, further stating that the claim of respondent no.5 is incorrect and that its mining lease area is not adjacent to the mining area of the respondent no.5. In fact, on the contrary, it is surrounded by mining lease area of Jaypee Balaji cements. It was further brought to the notice of the Director of Mines and Geology, A.P., that the petitioner is getting raw material of iron ore from Bailadilla and coking coal from Australia which are faraway places. Hence,, the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Director of Mines and Geology that RINL is having residential township within a distance of 250 meters from the proposed Right of Way by the 5th 5 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 respondent. Any heavy transportation from such a short distance causes heavy pollution and will create heath problems to the employees/inmates living in the residential township of the petitioner.
6. In fact, the 1st respondent after receiving report from the Director of Mines and Geology has addressed a letter on 26.10.2015 to the 3rd respondent requesting it to intervene and advise the petitioner to give consent for the access corridor as sought by the respondent no.5. In turn the 3rd respondent has forwarded the said letter to the petitioner seeking comments on the said letter and the petitioner has submitted a reply on 08.7.2016 bringing to their notice that the subject land is private patta land owned by the Government of India and it is meant for developmental activities of the petitioner and that all the issues were already addressed to the respondents 1 and 5 and that the 5th respondent has an alternative way and the 5th respondent's land was not surrounded by the petitioner's land and the same was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent and its authority in the meeting held on 27.9.2014. It was further brought to the notice of respondents 2 and 3 that the subject patta land was meant for petitioner's future developmental activities and kept for afforestration/green belt purpose and the Government of India has already addressed a letter to the concerned public sectors that the approval of Central Cabinet is required for utilizing the patta land in any other manner by them or by third parties.
7. Again the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner on 04.7.2017 calling upon the petitioner to submit its comments with regard to the request of the respondent no.5. The petitioner vide its letter dt.05.10.2017 has submitted the following objections:
The proposed right of way corridor requested by 5th respondent towards the South side of Jaggayyapet Limestone Mining Lease Townships comprises of Forest Land, Patta Land and 6 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 Government Land (under public road and river). The petitioner also informed that in this regard petitioner has to obtain permission and consent from various statutory authorities. a. Secondly, it was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that the proposed corridor requested by the 5th respondent, runs parallel to the township at a distance of 250 mts. Granting a right of way within this area, will cause noise and dust pollution which is already resisted by the employees and as it would lead to health hazards.
b. Thirdly, it was also brought to the notice of the respondent no.1 that the said area is set apart for future mining and strategic development activity of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner informed the 1st respondent that the petitioner cannot accede to the said proposal,
8. And, with the above objections, the permission sought by the 5th respondent for approach corridor by Right of Way through petitioner's patta land is unwarranted and cannot be permitted, since the petitioner is exclusive owner of the patta land of an extent of 395 hectares and 5th respondent or any other others cannot enter upon it or interfere with the land, absolutely owned by the petitioner. Since it is a statutory requirement to obtain mining permission even in the patta land, petitioner obtained it from the 1st respondent. Except for this, neither the 1st respondent nor any other private parties have any right to interfere with the land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that, when a facility is available to the 5th respondent, only to make commercial gain and cause hurdles to the petitioner, he approached the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent hastily without considering the objections of the petitioner in a proper perspective, invoked Rule 12(S) of Mines (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons and Energy Minerals) Concession Rules 2016 and passed orders on 23.5.2018 and consecutively further directions were given on 23.01.2019 which is totally contrary to the principles of natural justice and 7 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 also the memos issued by the Government of India. Hence, as there is no other option questioning the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.
9. At the time of admission on 12.4.2019 this Court has passed the following order:
....There shall be an order of suspension of memo No.11031/M.III(02)/2013, dated 23.5.2018 and further memo No.11031.m.III(02)/2013, dated 23.01.2019, issued by respondent no.1, for a period of eight weeks..."
And the same was extended time and again.
10. After notice, the 5th respondent has filed its counter denying all the allegations made in the writ petition. The 5th respondent company is a public limited company existing for nearly 60 years and it is amongst the most respected industrial houses in the country. The 5th respondent is engaged in manufacturing of various types of cement known for its quality in India as well as other parts of the world and it is sold under the brand name "Ramco". This respondent has various manufacturing plants including three integrated cement plants in Tamilnadu and one each in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and cement grinding units at West Bengal and Tamilnadu and upcoming plants in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The respondent has captive mines in Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh, from which it derives raw materials (limestone) for the manufacture of cement. 5th respondent has procured mining leases for all these mines without any violation of rules. Further stated that it is also one of the major tax payers in the country and contributes to the revenue of the Governments (both State and Central) by way of income tax, royalty, GST and state taxes to the extent of over Rs.2428 crores for the last financial year 2018-19 without any arrears or delay.
11. Admittedly, over an extent of 1800 hectares was originally granted as a mining lease to the petitioner. The petitioner has surrendered 500 8 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 hectares. Unfortunately, and perhaps owing to the stature of the petitioner being a Government of India undertaking, this extent of 500 hectares has been surrendered by them right from the middle of the area of 1800 Hectares without touching the boundaries and remainder area. Hence, no other lessee would have been permitted to do so. Now the answering respondent was granted mining lease in this surrendered area wherein a path was indicated in the forest area. However, there is no connection between this path and the common access road. Thus, there is a legal obligation to the official respondents herein to provide a way or a path to enable this answering respondent to transport the mineral won from the lease granted by the 1st respondent State infavour of the 5th respondent. Therefore, this respondent has been requesting the authorities of the State to provide an access road in the mining lease area granted vide G.O.Ms.No.291 dated 30.10.2008 right from 2007 itself, while the application of the answering respondent was in consideration.
12. It is further stated that the mining lease area granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with one approach road in the forest area. However, from that approach road to the public road, there is no alternative way available except through mining lease area of RINL patta lands. In view of the same since 2007, the 5th respondent has been making repeated request for grant of permission for access corridor in the said area. Considering the request made by the 5th respondent, the State authorities have issued notice for consent from the petitioner for providing an access way for about 600 feet length and 30 feet width. Instead of considering the said request, the petitioner has submitted unreasonable objections stating that there is alternative way available and approval of the Central Government is required to give consent and further stated that there is an existing railway line. Hence, the 5th respondent can be used the same for 9 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 the transportation of mine. When the above said objections were not tenable and they have started by raising a new objection that there is a township within 200 meters is existing and in view of the heavy transportation by motor trucks carrying minerals will cause pollution to the employees in the said township and secondly it will cause loss to the future extension plans of the petitioner. Hence, the request should be rejected.
13. Considering the objections as well as the request made by the 5th respondent, the Director of Mines and Geology has conducted a meeting on 27.9.2014 between the officers of the petitioner, the mining department and representatives of the 5th respondent. During the course of the said meeting the officers of the petitioner has raised the above stated objections, while the officers of the mining department and those of the answering respondent had explained the factual aspects to the DMG along with repelling the contentions put forth by the petitioner's officers. Having seen that the officers of the petitioner were not being responsive to the suggestions to be reasonable, the said meeting was concluded with a request that all the parties would submit their respective stands, in writing. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted a referred representation dated 17.10.2014 reiterating their stand taken earlier in addition that they have taken a ground of pollution likely to be caused to its township and so on.
14. There is no other alternative way which can be utilized by the answering respondent after executing the lime stone from the lease area and there is no railway line that can be utilized by them by the 5th respondent in order that and the South side of the mining lease is surrounded by Jaypee Balaji Cements Limited which is in forest and further South and East lease is held by RINL. Even in case the railways, another Central Government entity, permit the answering respondent to use their lands, the transportation vehicles will have to cross K.Agraharam village 10 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 that has a population of more than 3000. Without having any valid grounds, the petitioners are repeatedly referring the policy of the Central Government and the same is no connection to the present case, as there is no proposal for alienation of the land held by the Government of India. In fact the proposal is that the 5th respondent has been making and creating a block/thar road in the proposed corridor and it has to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum to the petitioner for being permitted to use the road non exclusively, maintain the road and provide greeneries on both sides while compliance of all environmental norms and move towards mechanization of transportation of miners in the area by putting up a conveyor belt to transport mineral and all together stop moving mineral by trucks. Firstly as there is no proposal of alienation in any manner, secondly the lands in question belong to the State Government and thirdly when there is no alienation of lands belonging to Government of India, there is no requirement of cabinet approval.
15. It is only after elaborate discussions with the petitioner's representatives as per Rule 12(s) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Materials) Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the '2016 Rules') is precisely being invoked, in cases like these, where the two adjacent mineral lease holders are unable to come to an agreement with respect to providing right of way to each other or one another. Rule 12(s) of the 2016 Rules reads as follows:
"Rule 12(s): The lessee shall allow reasonable facilities of access to any existing and future holders of Government licences or leases over any land which is comprised in or adjoins or is reached by the land held by the lessee:
Provided that no substantial hindrance or interference shall be caused by such holders of licenses or leases to the operations of the lessee and fair compensation (as may be mutually agreed upon or in the event of disagreement as may be decided by the State Government) shall be 11 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 paid by them to the lessee for any loss or damage sustained by the lessee by reason of the exercise of this liberty.
16. As per the above rule, there is an obligation on the part of official respondents to provide access to the answering respondent and therefore Rule 12(s) of the 2016 Rules has been rightly invoked. And the impugned orders have been passed by the State Government after due negotiations with the parties interested and the procedure contemplated under the above said rule. The State Government has initiated action in the course of developing industries in the State on fair and equitable grounds under the extent permitted under the law. The possession of the petitioner's property is not interfered in any way as the respondents are not intended to claim any ownership over the property nor intend to construction of any permanent structures it is only proposed access corridor has been granted. Infact the petitioner is also entitled to use the said road and it is not an exclusively given to the 5th respondent. The entire leased area is held by the writ petitioner contains predominantly Government land, owned by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest reserve land and partly an extent of 395 hectares of private patta land, held by the petitioner. The proposed corridor is only through the Government lands covered under the mining lease of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders are passed in accordance with the rules giving direction to the access to lay and use the road. In view of the above, there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned orders and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
17. First respondent filed their counter. As per the averments of the counter that the petitioner was in possession of the above said 395 hectares which were acquired as per the norms governed under the Mineral Concession Rules 1960. According to the same, the 1st respondent rights will be lost to the adjacent and adjoining areas. It implies that wherever or 12 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 whenever a part of land is leased which is adjoining to petitioner's leasing area, the 1st respondent is conferred with all rights for passage of mineral excavated by the other lease holders as per 12(s) of Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 otherwise the 5th respondent who is also industry producing cement useful in developmental activities in the country will have no opportunity to mine in his leased area which in turn generates income to the exchequer of the State. After granting lease in favour of the 5th respondent, it has made a request for providing corridor measuring 600 mts length and 30 mts width road out of whole area of 1295 hectares of the petitioner's leased area. No doubt it is a very tiny part of the whole extent. Considering the said request, this respondent has called negotiations with the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and conducted joint meeting and made all efforts to appraise the situation and also with the powers conferred on it. Accordingly he has fixed the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum for providing corridor for mobility by the 5th respondent from the petitioner's leased area.
18. Even on the objections raised by the petitioner, the 5th respondent has also offered some more facilities and has shown his readiness to lay down a complete B.T.Road throughout the corridor to avoid dust pollution and to develop green belt in the entire area for environmental equilibrium. The 5th respondent had also offered that it will transport raw material through 20 mt trucks to avoid sound pollution and he also chosen another way that it may be permitted to transport his raw material in the event of excavation by closed conveyor belt system. Infact as per the objections raised by the petitioner, if the objections raised by the petitioner is considered to use the closed railway station, it will cause or disturb the living conditions of the neighboring villages and infact the petitioner was neither directed to sell or alienate the leased portion of land to it, it was 13 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 only instructed to accommodate adjacent lease holder to transport his excavated raw material to its point of manufacturing unit.
19. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Ravindra Rao, appearing on behalf of the leaned counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised the following grounds.
(i) The impugned orders are passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Hence, the same is violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii) Secondly, the impugned orders are contrary to the memo issued by the Government of India on 21.3.2011.
(iii) Once the impugned orders are implemented it violates the conditions stipulated in the lease and when the land is reserved for afforestration when the same is used for some other purpose it leads to contravening the conditions of the environmental clearances issue infavour of the petitioner.
20. The learned senior counsel has contended that the impugned orders are passed giving access corridor to an extent of 1.80hectares through the mining lease area held by the petitioner to transport lime stone from the Budawada mining lease to the cement factory at Jayanthipuram by fixing unilateral tax amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum as per Rule 12(s) of the 2016 Rules without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. In the entire impugned order, there is no reason given by the respondent with regard to the specific objections raised by the petitioner firm. In fact the petitioner has submitted its objections to the director of Mines and Geology through their letter dated 17.10.2014. Along with the said letter they have filed 10 objections and the learned Senior Counsel more specifically relied on objection no.7 and 9. As per the objections raised by the RINL, the mining lease area which is a patta land of M/s RINL. The Central cabinet approval is required as per letter no.511/2/1/2010-CA III dated 21.3.2011 of Secretary, (Coordination and Planning) Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapathi 14 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 Bhawan New Delhi-110004. However the area of about 255 hectares through which right of way is sought by the MCC i.e. 5th respondent is required for afforestration purpose. As out of the total mining lease area of 1295 hectares about 900 hectares is out of soil and does not support vegetation. But aforesaid objections were not properly considered by the respondents, while passing impugned orders. In fact at the time of negotiations considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the 1st respondent has wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent vide its letter dt.26.10.2015 and letter dated 08.7.2016 requesting the 3rd respondent to intervene in the matter and advised the petitioner to accord consent to 5th respondent to access corridor over an extent of 1.08 hectares through RINL mining lease area, Jaggayyapeta Mandal, Krishna District. After making a request for interference without waiting and without consent of the Central Government, the impugned orders are passed. Hence, the respondents knowing well about the DO letter of the Central Government dated 21.3.2011, which clearly stipulates approval of the Central cabinet in each case of sale or long term lease of the land belonging to the Government or Government controlled statutory authorities. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Central Government undertaking. Hence, the 1st respondent has requested the 3rd respondent for grant of consent vide their letters dated 26.10.2015 and 08.7.2016. Hence, without having consent from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is not entitled to pass the impugned orders. On the sole ground the impugned orders have to go.
21. Further the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that these 395 hectares of land is a private patta land. To support his contention, the petitioner has filed I.A.01 of 2021 and along with the said I.A. they have filed the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition of the year 1980. As per the awards passed by the Special Deputy Collector, 15 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 the possession of the entire land has been delivered to the petitioner. Hence,, if any alienation or transfer of any Government of India land, approval of cabinet is necessary as per the memo dated 21.3.2011. Further submitted that now the proposed corridor access road of 600 meters length and 30 meters width in an extent of 1.08 hectares which is also a Government land. Hence, the said proposal is contrary to the memo dated 21.3.2011.
22. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the proposed corridor is within 200 meters from the existing residential locality of township of its employees. According to the working plan of 5th respondent, they will transport more than 11,41,250 tons of lime stone by road from lease area to their manufacturing factory through this access corridor which will highly pollute the area and cause the township as well as Budhawada village and neighbouring areas. In view of the same, requested to direct the 5th respondent to transport by using railway line. If any road is laid and if the 5th respondent is permitted to transport the mining minerals from the said road by virtue of heavy traffic, it will cause pollution and by virtue of that health issues will arise to the employees of the petitioner. In view of the same, the proposed road corridor will cause hardship to the employees of the petitioner. Hence, requested not to give permission to the 5th respondent.
23. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention to the mining map filed along with the writ petition and according to the said map, there is a railway line passing from East to West within the mining lease area of the 5th respondent and the same will touch the cement plant of the 5th respondent. Hence,, there is no requirement of any road transport in view of the existing railway line. And he has also submitted that out of 1295 hectares in 900 hectares they are doing mining activities and is devoid of 16 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 soil and does not support afforestration and in view of the same now remaining land the petitioner has proposed to develop a green belt to evade pollution and it is very much required for afforestration apart from future expansion.
24. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Rule 12(s) of the 2016 Rules has no application to the present case. The present proposed lands are patta lands of the Government of India. Rule 12(s) is only applicable to the leased lands. When these lands are private patta lands of the Government of India, the State Government has to get sanction from the Central Cabinet, without consent they cannot invoke Rule 12(s), and it is only applicable to the leased lands. In view of the above, requested to set aside the impugned orders and directed to remand the matter to the Government to get consent from the 3rd respondent before passing any orders.
25. Reply to the said contentions Sri Shiva Raj Srinivas, counsel for the 5th respondent has submitted that, the official respondents after deliberations and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioners and considering the relevant material and the request made by the 5th respondent has passed the impugned orders by giving access corridor of 1.80 hectares, i.e. 600 meters length and 30 meters width through the mining lease area held by RINL i.e. the petitioner to transport lime stone from Budhawada mining to the Jayanthinagar of 5th respondent. He submitted that as per Rule 12(s) of Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, the lessee shall allow facility of access to any existing/future lease holders of the State Government. As per the above legislation every lease holder shall have to allow reasonable facility of access to the adjacent lessees. In the instant case as request made by the 5th respondent, access to the proposed corridor of 600 meters length and 30 meters width was 17 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 given on payment of compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum to the petitioner and the petitioner was also further directed to lay the black tap road and maintain the said road properly by developing greenery on both sides. It is not correct that the petitioner is the owner of the said land. Even though the land is acquired for mining lease, once the competent authority has granted lease in favour of the petitioner, the land should be treated as leased area. Hence, the official respondents are competent to invoke to Rule 12(s). As per Rule 12(s), the competent authorities can pass an order giving access corridor to the adjacent lease holders. In view of the same, contention of the learned Senior Counsel is not correct, though the land is acquired and possession has been handed over to the petitioner, only for mining. Hence, the official respondents have rightly invoked Rule 12(s) and passed impugned orders. However, the memo of the Central Government dated 21.3.2011 is not applicable to the case on hand. He specifically contended that here the land is not alienated or transferred in favour of any third parties. The above said memo has been issued by the Central Government by noting instances, and the Government and Government controlled organizations are directed to get cabinet consent to alienate by way of sale, lease and license, by such authorities. But in the instant case, there is no alienation or transfer has been made. It is only giving access corridor to utilize for transportation of mineral mine from the lease area to the factory. Even though access road is not exclusively given to the 5th respondent that can be used by the petitioner as well as the others also. Hence, reliance of the said memo is not applicable to the present case and there is no necessity to get any consent or approval from the cabinet or the Central Government is required in the case on hand.
26. He further contended that even according to the land acquisition proceedings, the Special Deputy Collector has acquired lands and only 18 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 handed over to the petitioner and no ownerships are transferred infavour of the petitioner or infavour of the Central Government.
27. In fact after several negotiations and deliberations, to the objections raised by the petitioner, the 5th respondent has given further willingness for providing mechanization by establishing a conveyor belt system for transportation of lime stone as per rules. Apart from that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent has further submitted that they will also use the closed trucks for transportation of lime stone from the said corridor. So by virtue of that no pollution will cause.
28. Learned Counsel for 5th respondent has further contended that the proposed road corridor is more than 500 meters away from the existing township and also submitted that they use only closed trippers for transportation of the mineral, hence, it will not cause any pollution. Even according to the petitioner they are having more than 295 hectares open land out of which if a continuous land of 1.80 hectares of land used by the 5th respondent will not cause any hardship to the petitioner and more over the official respondents have an obligation to provide access to the 5th respondent being an adjacent lease holder.
29. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents have reiterated the submissions made by the 5th respondent.
30. Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, on instructions, has submitted that the land in dispute is a Government land which was acquired in the year 1980 at the request made by the Government of India and the land has been handed over to the petitioner and it belongs to the Government of India. In view of the memo issued by the Government on 21.3.2011 any alienation, transfer or lease in favour of others, there is a mandatory approval from the cabinet is required. In view of the same, the 1st respondent has requested the 19 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 Central Government to give consent with regard to providing access corridor to 5th respondent in the lands of Government of India. Hence, without approval from the Government of India as per the memo dated 21.3.2011, the impugned orders should be treated as contrary to the said memo and Hence, the same should be set aside.
31. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, on careful scrutiny of the material and also the rules governing the field, the court is satisfied that the impugned orders are in conformity with Rule 12(s) of the 2016 Rules.
32. The interpretation of the rule by the petitioner firm amounts to selective interpretation as per its convenience. On careful reading, rule 12(s) of 2016 Rules has given discretion to the authorities. Hence, the discretion conferred on an authority has to necessarily exercise for the purpose provided in a statue.
33. In summarization of what has been noticed in the above is that the petitioner is having more than 295 hectors open land out of which only the marginal extent land of 1.80 hectares of land directed to be used by the 5th respondent, giving access corridor by virtue of the impugned orders, thereby the petitioner will not get affected any way.
34. In view of the above, there are no merits found in the writ petition. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The interim order granted on 12.04.2019 shall stands vacated.
________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 14.06.2021 Rd/Pnr 20 DR,J W.P.No.5066 of 2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.5066 of 2019 RD/PNR