Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sona Exports, Chennai vs Director Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of ... on 1 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)ALD489, 1998(4)ALT517
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT
1. All these writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order as requested by all the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Advocate-General as common question arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of all these writ petitions is almost similar.
2. All the petitioners are stated to have submitted quarry lease applications on different dates for grant of lease for cut or dressed granite. The applications are filed on various dates before the Director of Mines and Geology with regard to different extents of lands available for grant of quarry lease in different villages in the State of Andhra Pradcsh. The applications are filed under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'). Some of the applications are filed by the pattedars themselves for grant of quarry lease in their own lands.
3. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, almost in all cases after receiving the applications the work relating to inspection, survey and demarcation has been completed. The concerned Asst. Directors and the Deputy Directors of Mines and Geology are stated to have forwarded the application with favourable recommendations to the first respondent.
4. The complaint in the instant writ petitions relates to the inaction on the part of the first respondent in not disposing of the applications. The petitioners under the said circumstances pray for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the said inaction on the part of the Director of Mines and Geology in not disposing of their respective applications as illegal and arbitrary apart from being violative of Rule 12(5)(c) of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The petitioners consequently pray for issuance of an appropriate further direction to the first respondent to dispose of the applications within a specified period of time in accordance with the rules.
5. At this stage, it is required to notice that many of similar writ petitions were disposed of by this Court at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Director of Mines and Geology to consider and dispose of the applications filed by the applicants in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by the Court. The directions, on the face of which, appear to be inconsequential one and such directions were issued on the assumption that the Director is duty bound to consider every application and take an appropriate decision thereon.
6. Since these writ petitions were coming up almost every day before the admission Court, I thought it fit to direct the Government to file counter-affidavit explaining as to why the applications have not been disposed of and as to why each of the petitioner was being driven to the Court for getting such an apparent inconsequential direction. I have also requested the learned Advocate-General to appear in the matter and assist the Court and passed the following order:
"The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Department shall stand impleaded as the 4th respondent. Issue notice before admission to all the respondents.
The 4th respondent-the Principal Secretary shall file counter-affidavit explaining as to why earlier directions were issued directing the 1st respondent herein not to consider the applications for granting quarry lease and also shall state as to under what circumstances further directions were given directing the Director to consider the applications pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The Court would like to know as to what is the policy of the Government in the matter. The Director, 1st respondent herein shall also file the counter-affidavit stating all the required facts in detail as to why the applications of the petitioner and the similar applications were not being considered."
7. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce Department filed detailed counter-affidavit. It is inter alia stated that the State Government evolved a granite policy in the year 1993 i.e., granting quarry leases in respect of granite in favour of only those applicants who were having their own cutting and polishing units or who should establish their own cutting and polishing units within a period of two years from the date of grant of lease. Under the same policy, the Government was also encouraging 100% Export Oriented Units as well as SSSI Units. However, the Government have imposed double the seigniorage fees on (he granite that is being exported through the ports outside the State. It is required to notice that the raw granite in blocks is having great demand in international market also. According to the counter-affidavit that the double seigniorage fee they imposes on the mere conditions. However, this Court struck down the said policy of the Government by its judgment dated 4-8-1995 in WP No.15300 of 1994 and batch.
8. hi the meanwhile, the Government of India has constituted a Granite Development Council in June, 1995 by drawing various officers from different States and also from the representatives of the Entrepreneurs. It was constituted solely with an intention to have a uniform nationwide policy on granite and to promote the exports of granite to earn valuable foreign exchange while meeting the in land demand. The prime object of the granite development Council is conservation and optimum exploitation of granite by reducing the waste that is being generated during mining operations.
9. Having regard to the fact that the earlier policy of the year 1993 was struck down by this Court and also in view of the guidelines prescribed by the Central Government, the State Government thought it fit and proposed to have a new comprehensive granite policy. There is no dispute whatsoever that the State Government is entitled to have its own policy in respect of minor minerals.
10. It is under those circumstances, the Government thought it fit to impose the ban on granting of mining lease in respect of granite till the formulation of new policy and directions were accordingly issued vide Memo No. 125/ MI(2)/95, dated 21-10-1995. It is stated that the issue of formulating a new granite policy is under the active consideration of the State Government and in order to evolve a new Granite Policy a reputed consultancy Company, namely, Tata Consultancy Services has been appointed to make a comprehensive study of granite industry including mines and processing. The Tata Consultancy Services is stated to have submitted its report through letter dated 8-4-1998 and the same is stated to be under active consideration of the Government.
11. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that in the meanwhile the Department went on receiving applications continuously from the interested parties for grant of quarry lease for granite in the office of the Director of Mines and Geology. The said applications were being sent for inspection, survey and to ascertain the classification and availability of the land from the Revenue Department "with an intention to consider the applications as soon as the ban is lifted after evolving a comprehensive policy," It is further stated that in the meanwhile some of the applicants having waited for some time approached this Court and filed writ petitions without disclosing the full facts. This Court, at the admission stage itself issued directions to the respondents directing them to dispose of the applications as per law.
12. It is under those circumstances and with a view to comply with the directions of this Court, the Government issued another Memo No.9876/MH(i)/96, dated 224-1996 directing the Director of Mines and Geology to consider such of those applications and dispose of the same in compliance with the directions of this Court. The said Memo was issued by the Government only with an intention to comply with the orders of this Court. That is how the Government explained as to why the applications are not being disposed of and as to under what circumstances, the Government has to issue the revised directions directing the Director of Mines and Geology to consider and dispose of the applications wherever this Court directed the consideration of the applications. There is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in upholding the Government's right to have the new comprehensive granite policy, as admittedly, the State Government is empowered to have its own policy in respect of the minor mineral. Granite is a minor mineral. I do not find any difficulty whatsoever in upholding the Government's Memo in Memo No.125/ MI(2)/95, dated 21-10-1995, whereunder directions are issued by the Government to the Director of Mines and Geology not to grant any quarry lease for granites and barytes (fresh and renewals) till a policy decision is taken. But at the same time it is required to notice that the respondents willingly suffered the orders from this Court and invited directions for disposal of the applications for grant of quarry lease even while its Memo dated 21-10-1995 is in operation. The reasons recorded in the file as to why the Government thought it fit to issue directions to the Director of Mines and Geology not to grant any quarry lease on granite and barytes (fresh and renewals) till a policy decision taken are sound and good. But it is difficult to appreciate as to why the Government has chosen not to place the record before the Court and resisted the writ petitions that were being filed from time to time by the interested parties. The Court would not have disposed of writ petitions at the admission stage by issuing directions to the respondents to act contrary to their own policy decisions, had the respondents brought the policy decision to the notice of the Court. On the other hand, it appears that the respondents have willingly invited orders from this Court. It is a situation contrived by the respondents so as to act and dispose of the applications contrary to their own policy decisions. The validity of the Government Memo dated 21-10-1995 is not under challenge. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, the Memo dated 21-10-1995 does not suffer from any vice as such warranting interference of this Court.
13. The petitioners apparently have no quarrel with the said Memo. Their entire case rests upon the subsequent Memo issued by the Government in Memo No.9876/M.II(l)/96, dated 22-4-1996. The said Memo makes an interesting reading and the same is referred to hereunder :
"With reference to his proposal cited, the Director of Mines and Geology is advised to take follow up action on the Court orders for renewal of quarry lease of M/s. R.R. Granites and other similar cases as per provisions of existing policy.'' The record would disclose that one M/s. R.R. Granites filed writ petition with a prayer to issue necessary directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Government as well as the Director of Mines and Geology to grant the renewal of quarry lease for black granite over an extent of 1 hectare in Sy.No.1757 of Nookalakunta village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor district. It was a case of renewal and the petitioners therein simply .relied upon Rule 31 of the said rules and contended that the respondents were bound to grant renewal for not more than two times to the period of quarry lease and the renewal application has to be disposed of before expiry of lease period. However, the application of R.R, Granites perhaps was not considered in view of (he Government Memo dated 21-10-1995, inasmuch as the said Memo directed the Director not to consider the request for fresh grant as well as renewal. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition by an order dated 9-2-1996 directed the Director to consider the renewal application dated 18-1 -1995 and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law applicable thereto within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order thereof.
14. Immediately, the Director by letter dated 18-4-1996 requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to issue necessary orders to enable him to consider the first renewal quarry lease application of M/s. R.R. Granites, pursuant to the directions of this Court. Another similar writ petition has been filed in WP No.6222 of 1996 by M/s. Goyal Exports and the same was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 29-3-1996 with similar directions, in the said case also, the Director requested the Government for issuing necessary directions through the letter even dated. The said request ultimately resulted in issuing subsequent Memo dated 22-4-1996 advising the Director of Mines and Geology to take up follow up action. Pursuant to the directions of this Court "for renewal of quarry lease of M/s. R.R. Granites and other similar cases as per provisions of existing policy", it appears through the impugned memo, all that the Government instructed the Director to consider renewal of quarry lease of R.R. Granites and other similar cases. It may be noticed that even the revised Memo dated 22-4-1996 instructs the Director to consider the quarry lease of M/s. R.R. Granites and other similar cases. Evidently, the Memo applies in case of grant of renewal under the rules. There is no doubt whatsoever to hold that the revised Memo does not say anything about the disposal of fresh applications. Therefore, the revised Memo dated 22-4-1996 has no bearing whatsoever upon the issue relating to the disposal of fresh applications for grant of quarry lease. It is true, the Government could have been more careful and precise in issuing instructions to the Government by confining itself to those cases of renewal where the directions were issued by this Court.
15. What is interesting to note is that both the Government as well as the Director failed to acquaint the Court the true nature and scope of the earlier Memo dated 21-10-1995 and the subsequent Memo dated 22-4-1996 and the circumstances under which the subsequent Memo was issued by the Government. At no point of time, the record was placed before the Court and in no cases, the Director as well as the Government opposed the directions of this Court directing the Government and the Director to consider the respective applications of the petitioners/ applicants. It looks, as though the Government issued Memo prohibiting the grant of quarry lease pending formulation of a comprehensive policy only for public consumption and observed sphinx like silence while the interested persons were obtaining the directions from this Court. Not only the Government ultimately suffered the order in some cases, but actually created a situation and willingly invited the directions from this Court. At no point of time, the Court was informed as to why the quarry lease applications were not being considered. A situation is sought to be created as if the Court was coming in the way of Government in formulating a comprehensive granite policy. It is an attempt on the part of the respondents to project the image of an injured innocent. It is a case where the Government should further probe into the matter as to who are those persons responsible in failing to place the matter before the Court in right perspective.
16. In my considered opinion, the Government is entitled to have a comprehensive policy of its own in the matter of grant of quarry lease. No applicant can insist that his application should be considered and disposed of within a particular time even while the policy decision is under the Government consideration. The Court cannot compel and issue any mandamus directing the State and its instrumentality to part away with its mines and minerals. It is for the State to decide as to in what manner it has to protect its natural resources and its utilisation thereof. Afterall raising of revenue can never be the sole criteria of any Government particularly in formulating policy relating to utilisation of natural resources and its wealth. Natural resources and wealth do not belong to any individual or class. They belong to the people at large. It is the constitutional duty and obligation of the State and its machinery to protect the natural resources, such as, mines and minerals. It is Nation's wealth and its utilisation and exploitation should be to the maximum benefit and welfare of the people at large.
17. It is in this background the petitioners request for consideration of their applications for grant of quarry lease may be considered. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri V. Rajagopala Reddy and Sri P. Srinivas that the Memo dated 21-10-1995 cannot override the statutory rules and the authority concerned is bound to consider and dispose of the applications of the petitioners for the grant of quarry lease. Refusal to consider the applications would amount to abdication of statutory duty by the authority concerned and the Court in its discretion may issue writ of mandamus directing the authorities concerned to act according to law.
18. Rule 12(5) of the A.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 deals with regulation and grant of leases for granite useful for cutting and polishing. The rule prescribes that the application should be filed before the Director in Form B-I along with Treasury or Bank Challan for Rs.5,000/- towards non-refundable application fee and a deposit of Rs.10,000/-for every hectare or part thereof in the form of crossed D.D. The deposit would be refunded to the unsuccessful applicants and in case of successful applicants, the amount would be adjusted towards the dead rent or seigniorage fee. Rule 12(5)(b) mandates the Director to dispose of the applications in the order of their receipt and whenever more than one application are received on the same day, the Director, with the approval of the Government, shall grant lease to the deserving applicant on merits to be recorded in writing. Rule 12(5)(c) provides that the lease deed shall be executed within sixty days from the date of grant or within such further period as the Director may allow in this behalf on an application for extension of time by the applicant. For the present, we are not concerned with other sub-rules. In my considered opinion, Rule 12(5) merely regulates the procedure for grant of lease in respect of the granites useful for cutting and polishing. The rule docs not impose any time limit within which the Director has to dispose of the application. Rule 12(5)(c) merely says that a lease deed is to be executed within sixty days from the date of grant. Evidently, there is no time limit within which the applications of applicants is required to be considered. That apart, Rule 12(5) in my considered opinion, merely structure the discretion of the Director and provides as to in what manner, the Director is required to dispose of the applications. The expression used in Rule 12(5)(a), quarry lease....... shall be granted by the Director on an application made to him in Form B-I does not mean that the Director on the application is bound to grant lease on an application. In my considered opinion, rule should be read as that quarry lease for granite..... shall be granted by the Director only on application made to him in Form B-I. The discretion of the Director in what manner the applications are required to be considered and procedure thereof is provided by Rule 12. It does not confer any right upon the applicant as such to insist that each and every application should be considered within a particular time frame. True, if the Director decides to consider the application, the same shall be done only in accordance with Rule 12(5) and in no other manner. He cannot apply different yardsticks in respect of each applicant. He is bound to consider the applications only in accordance with the procedure prescribed i.e., the application should be (a) in Form B-I, (b) non-refundable application fee, (c) deposit of Rs. 10,000/- per every hectare and part thereof and such valid applications shall be disposed of by the Director in order of receipt. The rule is more of procedural in nature.
19. In my considered opinion, the applications received for grant of quarry lease may be kept pending by the Director pending the formulation of new policy. It is not as if those applications are returned on any ground as such. Even the Memo dated 21-10-1995 does not in any manner interfere with the discretion of the Director in the matter of following the statutory rules. The Government merely directed the Director not to consider the applications for some time until the formulation of a new comprehensive policy by the Government. Therefore, the submission that the Memo has an overriding effect over the statutory rules is untenable and unsustainable.
20. It is a different matter altogether that it is the Government which had tinkered with its own policy decision by issuing subsequent Memo dated 22-4-1996 about which I have already expressed my opinion.
21. In my considered opinion, there is no time limit as such prescribed by Rule 12(5) for considering such applications and non-disposal of applications for grant of quarry lease pursuant to the directions of the Government through Memo dated 21-10-1995 would not amount to any deliberate inaction or abdication of duty, ft is not a situation warranting interference of this Court for issuance of any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus.
22. The learned Advocate-General however, states that the Government is likely to declare and announce its new comprehensive policy within four months and the statement made by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Government is made part of the record.
23. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.