Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Palukur Labour Contract ... vs The Director Of Mines And Geology, ... on 20 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1992AP320, 1992(2)ALT69, AIR 1992 ANDHRA PRADESH 320, (1992) 2 ANDH LT 69
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This Writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-8-1991 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4748 of 1989. The matter relates to quarry lease of lime stones slab over an extent of 16 hectares (equivalent to 40 acres) in Sy. No. 650/1 of Palukuru Village of Banganapally Mandal, Kurnool District. The said quarry lease was earlier held by one Mr. E.K. Venkatesham and the same expired on 20-8-1987. The grant of leases and renewals thereof of the quarries of instant nature are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 which were framed under rule making power under the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 which are hereinafter referred to as "the rules" Rule 13(2) of the said rules contemplates of making renewal application by the existing lessee and the time fixed for making such an application is 90 days before the expiry of the said lease. Mr. E.K. Venkatesham, had in fact applied for the renewal of the said lease on 14-5-1987 and the same was perfectly within time, but later he withdrew the same and on 17-7-1987, the 4th respondent herein had filed an application for the grant of quarry lease in the above survey number over an extent of 18 acres and the appellant herein has also filed an application for the grant of quarry lease for the entire extent of 40 acres, which was available. But, the said application was filed by the appellant on 10-8-1987 i.e. just 10 days before the expiry of the lease held by Mr. E.K. Venkatesham. Both these applications were not disposed of by the concerned authority within, the stipulated time of 90 days and as such, it was stated that there was deemed rejection of their applications which provoked them to file revisions before the Government and the Government had allowed the said revisions and directed the concerned authority i.e. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Cuddapah, the 2nd respondent herein, to dispose of the said applications.
2. While the things stood thus, the 5th respondent filed an application for the grant of quarry lease in the above survey number on 17-2-1988 over an extent of 40 acres. Yet, another party, namely, M/s. South Indian Stone Polishing Industries had also filed an application dated 15-10-1987 for the grant of quarry lease in the above survey number over an extent of 18 acres. There was two writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 12444 and 13504 of 1988 filed by the appellant and the 4th respondent respectively before this Court and this Court had issued directions to consider the applications for grant of quarry lease filed by them. The orders passed in the said writ petitions do not have any bearing for the adjudication of this case. This Court has simply directed to dispose of the application filed for the grant of quarry lease in the above survey number not only by the appellant and the 4th respondent but also other applications which were pending on the said date in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereof. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 3-10-1988 contained in his proceedings number 5162/SQ/287, granted lease in favour of the 4th respondent in so far as 18 acres is concerned and the balance of 22 acres was granted in favour of the 5th respondent. The basis for the grant of the said leases in favour of 4th and 5th respondents respectively was the interpretation of the Law Department of R. 12(3) of the Rules which was later numbered as R. 12(4) of the Rules. The interpretation was to the effect that the application for grant of fresh lease was maintainable, provided, the same is filed 30 days before the expiry of the present lease and any application filed within 30 days of the expiry of the lease has to be treated as time barred. Concisely speaking, the applications were to be filed beyond 30 days of the expiry of the lease and not within 30 days of the expiry of the lease. The 2nd respondent held that there was only one valid application, namely, the application of the 4th respondent, for the grant of lease over an extent of 18 acres as the same was filed beyond 30 days as 30 days period was to expire on 21-7-1987 and the lease application by the 4th respondent was filed beyond the said period i.e. 17-7-1987. In that view of the matter, the 4th respondent's application was considered and he was granted lease over an extent of 18 acres as sought for, while rejecting the application of the appellant as time barred, as the same was filed 10 days before the expiry of the lease period. The 2nd respondent did not consider the appellant's application for the remaining area of 22 acres as he limited the said application for the grant of lease before the expiry of the existing lease and treated it as premature so far as the remaining area of 22 acres is concerned. He made a distinction of the applications filed before the expiry of the tease and later to it and as such, he did not consider the application of the appellant for the remaining area of 22 acres at all. For the extent of 22 acres, he had considered only the applications of 5th respondent and that of Messrs. South India Stone Polishing Industries, Bethamcherla, and giving preferential right to the 5th respondent, had rejected the application of M/s. South India Stone Polishing Industries. M/s. South India Stone Polishing Industries has not challenged the said order and the said order of rejection against the said party had become final. The appellant had pursued his remedy firstly by filing writ petition No. 15359/88 which was rejected by this Court at the admission stage on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal whereupon the appellant had filed the said statutory appeal before the 1st respondent in case No. 28228/M1/87. The 1st respondent had rejected the appeal affirming the order of the. 2nd respondent. Assailing the said orders, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 4748/89. The learned single Judge has repelled the contention of the petitioner that the application for grant of quarry lease filed by the appellant was in time on the interpretation that the same was entertainable, if filed, within 30 days of the expiry of lease. The learned Judge ruled that properly construing R.12(3), presently renumbered as R.12(4), fresh applications for grant of quarry lease can be entertained only if they are filed 30 days before the expiry of lease. Consequently, the lease granted in favour of the 4th respondent was upheld on the ground that it was the only valid application. With regard to balance of area, the learned Judge did not accept the contention of the respondents that the application filed by the respondent was premature. Consequently, the lease for the remaining area in favour of 5th respondent was set aside and directions were issued to consider the application of the appellant for grant of lease for the remaining area. Against this order, while the appellant had preferred the appeal, the 5th respondent has filed cross-objection.
3. Mr. E. Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that under R. 12(4), the application for grant of lease can be filed within 30 days of expiry of lease and as there were only two valid applications that of the appellant and the 4th respondent and the appellant being a Labour Co-operative Society, was entitled to have the lease on preferential basis as cotemplated under Cl. (ii) of sub-rule (2) of R. 12of the Rules. He has cited the judgment dated 5-8-1980 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 2634 and 2501 of 1980 as also the decision in Devangula Laxminarayana v. Director of Mines and Geology, in support of his propositions. In so far as the judgment in W.P. Nos. 2634 and 2501/80 is concerned, that deals with the aspects of preferential rights under Cl. (iii) of sub-rule (2) of R. 12 of the Rules and the contention relating to premature applications. In so far as the preferential rights adjudicated in the said writ petitions are concerned, it has got no bearing on the facts of this case. With regard to premature applications, the said judgment comprehensively dealt with the matter and held that merely because the application for grant of lease was filed before the expiry of the lease, it cannot be thrown out as premature and repelled the contention that R. 60 of Mineral Concession Rules has to be applied even to the leases under A.P. Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The learned Judge held that what is applicable to major minerals cannot be made applicable to minor minerals and that such analogy of R. 60 of Mineral Concession Rules was not purposely adopted in the case of minor minerals. To the same effect is the judgment of the learned single Judge under appeal and also the decision in Devangula Laxminarayana's case, and we are in respectful agreement with the said proposition laid down to the effect that under A.P. Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, the applications for grant of lease filed before the expiry of the current lease cannot be rejected as premature. With regard to the bar of limitation, vis-a-vis the appellant and the 4th respondent, the learned single Judge had rightly repelled the contention of the appellant that the language employed under R. 12(4) of the rules has to be construed to the effect that the lease application can be filed within a period of 30 days of expiry of lease. The proper construction is that the lease application should be filed "30 days before the expiry of lease" and not as "within 30 days of expiry of lease". As such, the application of the appellant dated 10-8-1987 is clearly barred by limitation and the same was rightly not considered by the 2nd respondent as contemplated under R. 12(4) of the Rules. We agree with the finding of the learned single Judge on this aspect and accordingly hold that the lease granted in favour of 4th respondent to the extent of 16 (18? -- Ed.) acres is valid and there is no infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the same.
4. Coming to the next issue relating to annulling of the lease of 22 acres granted in favour of 5th respondent, though we agree with the learned single Judge that the application of the appellant dated 10-8-1987 cannot be held to be premature and that it was obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent to consider the said application for the area of 22 acres, we do not agree with the learned single Judge in setting aside the lease granted in favour of 5th respondent, as the most important aspect of the entitlement of the appellant herein for the grant of lease was not considered by the learned single Judge. It cannot be lost sight of that the appellant is not an individual and claims preferential rights on the basis of its being a labour co-operative society. It is not a disputed fact that the appellant holds the lease to an extent of 65.53 acres in the same survey number 650/1 and that the said lease is subsisting. In Rc. No. 1904/87-D, dated 19-2-1988, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Nandyal having jurisdiction over the area of operation of both the appellant and the 5th respondent societies has addressed a letter to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool, the contents of which are extracted below:
"The Ramkrishnapuram Vadde Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited No. Q.478 was registered on 29-1-1988 and started on its work on 8-2-1988. There are 104 members in the Society with paid up share capital of Rs. 1040-00. All of them are stone cutters. It requested the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kurnool in the reference third cited, to grant quarry lease to the Society to an extent of 40-00 acres in S. No. 650/1 of Palukur village enclosing the application form and Resolution of the society.
In this connection, I have to inform that the above quarry lease to an extent of 40-00 in S.No.650/1, was already recommended to Palukur L.C.C.S. in the reference first and second cited previously when the Vadde Labour Contract Co-operative Society was not registered at Ramkrishnapuram village. The Palukur Labour Contract Co-operative Society is already having quarry lease to an extent of 65-53 acres (26-530-Hectars) in S.No. 650/1 and it is sufficient to provide work to the members of Palukar L.C.C.S. for a long period. It does not require any other quarry for lease. The proposed quarry to an extent of 40-00 acres in S.No. 650/1 of Palukur village is very nearer to Ram-krishnapuram village and newly registered "Ramkrishnapuram Vadde Labour Contract Co-op. Society" has not been granted any quarry lease so far. Hence, I recommend that the quarry to an extent of 40-00 acres in S.No. 650/1 of Palukur village may be given for lease to Ramkrishnapuram Vadde Labour Contract Co-operative Society instead of Palukur L.C.C.S. for the reasons mentioned above."
This was pleaded by the 5th respondent it is counter filed in the writ petition, but the same was not considered by the learned single Judge. As such, we hold that even though the application of the appellant dated 10-8-1987 was not premature and that the 2nd respondent was liable to consider the same, as the appellant society is not entitled for grant of lease in view of the above proceedings of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Nandyal and in view of the fact that the appellant society is already a subsisting lessee over a vast extent of land of 65.53 acres, no injustice was done to the appellant and the latter did not suffer any legal injury so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The 5th respondent-society comprises of 104 Vadder-members belonging to lower strata of society and in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy, preferential right has been given to such a society by incorporating R. 12(3) and the grant of lease in favour of the 5th respondent was perfectly legal and valid and it was not liable to be set aside. Though Mr. E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned counsel appearing not only for the 4th respondent, but also for the 5th respondent who had filed cross-objections, urged six contentions, namely,
1) disentitlement of appellant for the grant of lease in view of subsisting lease of 65-53 acres;
2) the appellant-society is not represented by the same Secretary as was in the writ petition;
3) there is an alternative remedy of revision petition and that such writ petition ought not to have been entertained;
4) appeal was not filed within time and there was delay of 3 days;
5) there is a preferential right to 5th respondent as against any individual or other societies; and
6) as the lease-deed was already executed within 90 days in favour of the 5th respondent, the writ petition became infructuous we reject the contentions 2, 3, 4 and 6 outright as they do not merit any consideration while upholding the contentions 1 and 5. In the result, we pass the following order:
i) the order of the learned single Judge dated 12-8-1991 passed in W.P. No. 4748/89 relating to lease of 4th respondent is affirmed;
ii) the order of the learned single Judge referred to above annulling the lease granted in favour of the 5th respondent is set aside restoring the order dated 3-10-1988 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings 5162/Q/287;
iii) the interim orders passed in the writ appeal are vacated; and
iv) The Writ Appeal No. 1062/1991 is dismissed and cross-objections are allowed. However, we make no order as to costs.
5. Order accordingly.