Telangana High Court
M/S. Kisan Stone Crusher vs The State Of Telangana on 24 March, 2021
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.13834 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.5 and 6. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2020 directing the petitioner not to conduct the quarry operations in the land to an extent of 1.00 Hectare in Survey No.85 of Regulachelaka Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the petitioner has submitted an application on 17.04.2018 to the respondent No.4 seeking renewal of the quarry lease, the respondent No.4, without considering the said application, and without application of mind, has mechanically issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2020 directing the petitioner not to conduct any quarry operations until renewal of the quarry lease. The learned counsel has further stated that Rule 12(4)(iii) of the Telangana State Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, and has drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.48, Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 26.07.2017, to the extent of amendments made to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 and sub-Rule (4) of Rule 12 of the said Rules, which read as under: 2
"5) In Rule 10 for sub rule (1), the following shall be substituted, namely:
(1):- (i) Categorisation of minor minerals:- The minor minerals are categorised as follows:
(31) minerals ..............
Granite and Marble ..............
Existing minor minerals ..............
(ii) ..........................
6) ...........................
7) In Rule 12, after sub-rule (4), the following shall be substituted, namely:
4(i) Every application for renewal of quarry lease for (31) minerals, Granite and Marble shall be filed by the lease holder twelve months before the expiry of lease and no renewal of quarry lease shall be granted without obtaining scrutinized self attested quarry plan, Environmental Clearance, Consent for Operation.
(ii) The Director, on receipt of proposals for renewal of quarry lease shall issue notice to the applicant for submission of scrutinised self attested quarry plan, Environmental Clearance, Consent for Operation within six months or period extended with due consideration of merits on case-to-case basis, but in any case not later than the expiry of the lease period.
(iii) The applicant shall comply with submission of scrutinised self attested quarry plan, Environmental Clearance, Consent for Operation and obtain the renewal of quarry lease before the expiry of lease period. If the applicant fails to do so, no quarry operations shall be permitted beyond the expiry of lease period, till the renewal of quarry lease is obtained and enters into renewal lease deed.
(iv) Wherever an applicant fails to obtain renewal of quarry lease within twelve months from the expiry of lease period, the Director shall reject the renewal of quarry lease application duly withdrawing the notice and the area held under quarry lease may be considered for fresh allotment."3
A perusal of the amended Rule 12(4) of the Rules clearly shows that it is applicable to only renewal of quarry lease for 31 minerals, Granite and Marble and not to the existing mines and minerals, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition and do not fall in the 31 minerals enumerated or in the category of granite and marble.
Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is the quarry lease holder for stone and metal only. In view of the same, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that Rule 12(4)(iii) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4-Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Warangal, to reconsider the same afresh duly taking note of the fact that Rule 12(4)(iii) of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondent No.4 shall consider the application dated 17.04.2018 made by the petitioner for renewal of quarry lease, and pass necessary orders, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law, and duly taking note of the clarification issued by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition, is accordingly, allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 24.03.2021 va