Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Anjaneya Mining Company, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.18745 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner claiming to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner company prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the No Objection Certificates vide proceedings in R.C.A.363/2019 and R.C.A.364/2019 dated 06.05.2019 issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to accord mining lease in favour of respondents 6 & 7 over an extent of Ac.7.40 cents and Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease for Quartz mineral over an extent of Ac.12.00 cents (4.85 hectares) in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village which was processed and later vide G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 11.02.2009 lease was granted for 20 years.
Subsequently vide proceedings No.302/M/2007 dated 25.04.2009 of the 5th respondent, the petitioner company was accorded permission to commence mining operations for the period from 25.04.2009 to 24.04.2029 and the petitioner has been conducting mining operations accordingly.
(b) Later the petitioner made an application for grant of lease for Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 which is abutting to his mining lands for the purpose of dumping the raw materials and overburden of mud. The 4th respondent vide proceedings in ROC.B.531/2008 dated 26.11.2008 forwarded his application to 2nd respondent for taking necessary action. 2 Thereafter, on the persuasion of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent conducted inspection and made a recommendation for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 vide his proceedings in R.C.I.3644/2016 dated 29.12.2016. Thereafter, 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 25.10.2017 directed the respondents 3 & 5 to conduct a joint inspection and to find out whether there are minerals in the lands proposed to be leased and submit a report with a location map. The respondents 3 & 5 thus have seized the matter and they are yet to conduct joint survey.
(c) In the meanwhile, the respondents 6 & 7 made separate applications in February 2019 for granting lease of land to an extent of Ac.7.40 cents and Ac.4.94 cents respectively for quarry operations, which land overlaps with the land applied by the petitioner. Curiously, the 4th respondent without proper enquiry issued No Objection Certificates to respondents 6 & 7 vide proceedings No.R.C.A.363/2019 & R.C.A.364/2019 dated 06.05.2019. Basing on the said NOC, the respondents 6 & 7 made applications dated 07.02.2019 to 5th respondent for grant of mining lease in their favour. On coming to know this fact, the petitioner made a representation dated 25.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent to cancel the NOC dated 06.05.2019 issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7. In response thereof, the 2nd respondent directed the respondents 3 & 4 to conduct an inspection and submit a report in that regard. Accordingly, the 4th respondent submitted a report dated 14.10.2019 stating that the earlier Tahsildar of Podalakur Mandal has issued No Objection Certificates in favour of respondents 6 & 7 without knowing the fact that the petitioner had already applied for the same land way back in the year 2008 and thus requested the 2nd respondent to take further action in the matter. The 3rd respondent also 3 reiterated the same facts in his proceedings dated 23.10.2019 and requested the 2nd respondent to take necessary action in the matter. That is how the 2nd respondent has seized the matter.
(d) As per the information of petitioner, the 7th respondent addressed a letter dated 25.10.2019 to the 5th respondent requesting to cancel his application vide File No.521/P/2019 dated 07.02.2019. However, the 6th respondent is actively pursuing the 5th respondent to grant mining lease in his favour for Ac.7.40 cents in respect of his File No.520/P/2019 dated 07.02.2019. The petitioner submits that as per the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMDR Act') and the rules made thereunder, the applications for grant of lease shall be decided on first come first serve basis. Therefore, the application of the petitioner shall be considered favourably.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter with the following averments:
(a) On the application of the petitioner for mining lease, the 5th respondent requested to issue NOC and the then Tahsildar, Podalakur vide reference No.Rc.B.464/2007 dated 29.11.2007 has reported that the total extent of land in Sy.No.791 is Ac.52.83 cents which is classified as Konda Poramboke and it is far away from the house sites and therefore, there was no objection for granting mining lease.
(b) Thereafter, the Anjaneya Mining Company has again applied for alienation of land in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.791 for dumping of waste material extracted during mining. The then Tahsildar submitted a report to 3rd respondent stating that the land was not useful and hence, the 4 request of the petitioner may be considered vide his reference No.Rc.B.531/2008 dated 26.11.2008. Further, the 2nd respondent issued directions vide reference No.COLNLR-ESEE0ALN(REPS)/1/2017-SA(E2)-
REV-NLR dated 25.01.2017 to respondents 3 & 5 to conduct joint inspection as to whether any minerals are available in the proposed land.
(c) When the matter was pending, the 5th respondent vide letter Nos.520/P/2019 and 521/P/2019 dated 07.02.2019 requested to issue NOC for mining permission for an extent of Ac.4.94 cents and Ac.7.41 cents in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam in favour of respondents 6 & 7. The 4th respondent vide reference No.Rc.B.363/2019 and Rc.B.364/2019 dated 06.05.2019 addressed a letter to 3rd respondent stating that there is no objection for granting mining permission in favour of respondents 6 & 7. Knowing this fact, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent stating that his application is earlier to the applications of respondents 6 & 7 and therefore, NOC may not be issued in favour of respondents 6 & 7. On the said representation, the 2nd respondent vide Rc.E2/165/2016 dated 15.11.2019 issued instructions to 3rd respondent to conduct joint inspection with 5th respondent to see whether there is any possibility of granting mining lease in favour of respondents 6 & 7. The said joint inspection is pending. In the meanwhile, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. Finally it is pleaded that there are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the same may be dismissed.
4. The 6th respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition contending thus:
5
(a) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine for suppression of material facts as the petitioner did not specifically mention that he is authorized to file the affidavit. The 6th respondent is also a partner of the petitioner's firm and the writ petition is filed without intimation, knowledge and decision taken by the firm to file the writ petition. The firm never intended to litigate the issue and so the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(b) The factum of petitioner's applying for Ac.12.00 cents of land for mining lease and grant made by the Department is not disputed. However, it is contended that the petitioner did not make any application for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents for the purpose of dumping the raw material and overburden of the mud. Mr. Bade Deepak Reddy was not even a partner in the petitioner firm as on the date of submitting of said application. On the contrary, it was Mr.N.V.Srinivasulu Reddy along with 6th respondent representing the petitioner's firm, approached the Revenue Department for grant of permission. However, they were informed that as the applied land is in mining zone, permission for lease cannot be granted except for mining lease. By then Mr. Deepak Reddy was not even a partner of the firm.
(c) It is true that the 2nd respondent directed the 5th respondent to conduct inspection and find out whether there is any mineral in the land proposed to be leased and submit report. If the joint inspection is conducted, the land will not be given for any other purpose except for mining lease since the area is covered with vast extent of quartz mineral. Since the respondents 6 & 7 have applied for mining lease, their applications were rightly processed and NOC was issued by the Revenue Department. Since no mining lease was prayed for by the petitioner, the question of 5 th respondent considering his application does not arise. Hence, the question 6 of giving priority over the applications filed by the respondents 6 & 7 to the petitioner also does not arise. The petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. The 7th respondent filed counter while adopting the counter of 6th respondent, he made some additional averments.
(a) The 7th respondent denied to have addressed a letter dated 25.10.2019 requesting 5th respondent to cancel his application. On the other hand, he addressed a letter dated 19.12.2019 to the 5th respondent stating that he never wanted to withdraw his application and not to believe the version of the petitioner. It is believed that the petitioner must have impersonated the 7th respondent before the authorities. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of the material facts.
6. Heard arguments of Sri G.R.Sudhakar, counsel representing Sri V Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 4; learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology representing 5th respondent; and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, counsel representing the respondents 6 & 7.
7. Counsel on either side reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. While counsel for petitioner Sri G.R.Sudhakar argued that the petitioner made an application for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.791 which is abutting to his mining lands for the purpose of dumping the raw mineral and overhead burdening of the mud and his application is much earlier to the applications filed by the respondents 6 & 7 seeking mining lease of the very same land and therefore, on priority basis the 7 petitioner's application shall be considered, refuting the same, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 would argue that the petitioner Sri Bade Deepak Reddy was not even a partner of the petitioner firm when application for lease of Ac.15.00 cents of land was made and in fact the said application was filed by respondent No.6, who is the Partner of the petitioner firm along with the Managing Partner and subsequently respondents 6 & 7 filed applications for mining lease in respect of the same land and as the priorities are concerned, the petitioner firm filed application only for lease of the land to dump the raw material and mud, whereas respondents 6 & 7 filed applications for mining lease and since quartz mineral is heavily deposited in the subject land, the said land cannot be leased for any other purpose except for mining purpose. In that view, the question of considering the petitioner's application on priority basis does not arise. Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad further argued that the petitioner's contention that the 7th respondent has withdrawn his application is a sheer lie and he never withdrew his application and to that effect he addressed a letter to the mining officials.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue argued that at first the petitioner's application for lease of Ac.15.00 cents of land for dumping the mineral and mud was considered as at that time no other applications were pending and NOC was issued, but subsequently, respondents 6 & 7 filed applications for grant of mining lease and in that view, the 2nd respondent directed the respondents 3 & 5 to conduct a joint inspection as to whether in the applied area mineral is deposited and to submit report so as to take a suitable decision and the joint inspection is pending and in the meanwhile, 8 the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology also argued in similar lines.
9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?
10. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the parties. It appears, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are the partners of the petitioner's firm and there are internal bickerings between them. Be that it may, admittedly the petitioner's firm was granted mining lease for Ac.12.00 cents in Sy.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for 20 years i.e., from 25.04.2009 to 24.04.2029 vide G.O.Ms.No.52, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 11.02.2009 and also vide proceedings No.302/M/2007 dated 25.04.2009 issued by the 5th respondent.
(a) While so, the affidavit holder viz., Bade Deepak Reddy, who claims to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner's firm, claims to have filed an application for grant of lease of Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.791 which is abutting to the mining land of the petitioner for the purpose of dumping the raw materials and overburden of the mud. Initially, the 4th respondent who is the Tahsildar of Podalakur Mandal vide his letter in Rc.B.531/2008 dated 26.11.2008 informed to the 2nd respondent who is the District Collector, Nellore that there was no objection for granting lease of Ac.15.00 cents in favour of the petitioner's company for dumping the raw material and mud, since the said land is far away from the village and human inhabitation. Be that it may, on the instruction of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has inspected the land and sent a report vide Rc.I.3644/2016 9 dated 29.12.2016 to 2nd respondent stating that Ac.15.00 cents of land is covered with stones and not useful for any other purpose and hence, the same can be leased to the petitioner company for dumping raw mineral and mud.
(b) While the matter so pending, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 25.01.2017 to the 3rd respondent and instructed him to conduct a joint inspection along with 5th respondent to find out whether there are any minerals in the aforesaid Ac.15.00 cents of land and submit a report. When the matter was so pending, the respondents 6 & 7 filed applications for granting mining lease over an extent of Ac.7.40 cents and Ac.4.94 cents in respect of the same land. Knowing this, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent to cancel their applications as he already applied for lease of the same land and initially NOC was issued.
11. Now, as can be seen from the counter filed by 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Nellore vide proceedings in Rc.E2/165/2016 dated 15.11.2019 issued instructions to the 3rd respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore to conduct joint inspection along with 5th respondent and to submit report as to the feasibility of granting mining lease in Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 and at this juncture, the writ petition is filed.
12. Thus, the crux of the issue is whether the petitioner's application for grant of lease for dumping raw mineral and mud in an extent of Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.791 has to be considered or whether the applications of respondents 6 & 7 for grant of mining lease in respect of the same land has to be considered. At any rate, the 2nd respondent has already directed the 10 respondents 3 & 5 to conduct a joint inspection and submit report for taking further action in the matter. Therefore, in my considered view, a direction can be given to 2nd respondent to obtain the report from the respondents 3 & 5 and consider the facts in the said report and in turn express his views on the application of the petitioner on one hand and mining lease applications of respondents 6 & 7 on the other and forward his views to the 5th respondent for passing necessary orders.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing 2nd respondent to obtain joint inspection report from the respondents 3 & 5 expeditiously and basing on the said report, forward his views to the Director of Mines & Geology on the application of the petitioner for lease and the mining lease applications of respondents 6 & 7 in respect of Ac.15.00 cents of land in S.No.791 of Prabhagiri Patnam Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon, the Director of Mines & Geology shall pass an order on merits in accordance with the governing law and Rules within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the views from the 2nd respondent. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 08.02.2022 MVA