Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
1
APHC010022902021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1628/2021
Between:
1. M. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O.OBUL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, 0CC. BUSINESS, R/O.TATIMAKULAPALLY VILLAGE,
TALLAPALLY POST, VEMPALLY MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (MINES-I),
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, , A.P., SRI ANJANEYA
TOWERS, D.NO.7-104, B-BLOCK, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
YERRAGUNTLA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT, KADDAPA.
5. MD NIYAMATHULLA, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
R/O.KAGITALAPENTA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
2
pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondent No.2 herein passing an impugned proceedings
No.3187512/D/12-2/2020, dt.26.11.2020 rejecting the petitioner's application
filed by the petitioner herein for Barytes and Dolomite to an extent of 6.400
Hectares in Sy.Nos.224 and 214/B of Tallapally Village, Vempally Mandal,
YSR Kadapa District and set aside the same as being illegal arbitrary,
discriminatory and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and consequentially direct the Respondents herein to grant lease to the
petitioner as per the application and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to direct the respondents herein to suspend the impugned
proceedings No.3187512/D12-2/2020, dt.26.11.2020 passed by the
Respondent No.2 herein and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim orders dated. 01-
02-2021 in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 1628 of 2021 and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to set aside the order dated 26-07-2022 in WP. 1628/2021 and
restore the same to its file and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to receive the counter affidavit by allowing the leave petition and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
3
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to extend the interim order dated: 07.07.2022 in WP.No. 1628/2021
till such time and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to grant leave for filing the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed
by the Respondent No.5 herein and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to permit filing of documents viz., proceedings in file No.D-llOll/4/05-
Hyd dated 23-2- 2010 and secondly proceedings in Letter NO.13/M/2003
dated 7-1-2015 in the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V RAGHUNATH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
3. V R REDDY KOVVURI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, appearing for respondent No.5. 4
2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not granting the quarrying lease for Barytes and Dolomite over an extent 6.400 Hectares in Sy.Nos.224 and 214/B of Tallapally Village, Vempally Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has filed an application for a quarry lease for Barytes and Dolomite for the subject land. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology recommended the petitioner's case for the grant of a quarry lease. The ADM &G surveyed the subject land and after the survey, it was noticed that the applied area overlaps with another quarry lease area, therefore a show-cause notice dated 31-07-2017 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the application of the petitioner shall not be rejected. It is contended that vide proceedings dated 22-09-2017, the application of the petitioner was rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government, the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 24-05-2018, disposed of the Revision Petition, directing the department to verify the records of the previous lease holders and their renewal applications properly and to dispose of the cases of the previous lease holders. If no such lease holders are available, the department was directed to process the petitioner's application. 5
5. It is contended that vide proceedings dated 03-10-2019, the 3rd respondent, submitted proposals for the grant of the 2nd renewal of the quarry lease on the application filed by Md. Karamthullah, in favour of Md. Niyamathullah, the 5th respondent herein, the successor lessee of Md.Karamthullah. In pursuance thereof, a show cause notice dated 29-11- 2019 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the quarry lease application should not be rejected. After submitting a reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16490 of 2020, challenging the respondent's inaction in passing orders on the quarry lease application. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 16.09.2020, observing that:
"In view of the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.05.2018, the 2nd respondent may pass appropriate orders within a period of Eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the revenue authorities should see that there should be no mining operations in the above said disputed land without having proper license from the concerned authorities. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of."
6. It is contended that the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 27-10-2020 had reported that vide G.O. Ms.NO.741 dated 05-08-1970, mining lease was granted in favour of Md.Karamthulla over an extent of Ac.16-01 cents in Sy.No.224&214/B Thallapalli Village,Vempalli Mandal, for a period of 20 years. The said lease was in force up to 04-01-1991. 6
7. It is further contended that the said Md. Rahmatullah filed the 1st renewal application on 29-12-1989 within the stipulated time, i.e., within 12 months before the date of expiry of the lease. The 1st renewal application was deemed as rejected by the department. Against which, Md. Karamthullah filed a revision petition before the Government of India. The G.O.I. directed the state government to pass speaking orders on the application of Md. Karamthullah.
8. The Director of Mines and Geology recommended for renewal of the mining lease in favour of Md. Karamthullah, for a period of 20 years. He was required to submit a mining plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines within six months from the date of receipt of the memo dated 07-07-2000 for the grant of the first renewal. As the said mining plan was not submitted, the Director, Mines and Geology accordingly submitted rejection proposals on 13-04-2010; however, Md. Karamthullah submitted a renewal application on 05-01-2010. The said application was found to be belated one by day.
9. It is further contended that the 2nd renewal application was a belated one; however, the delay was condoned in terms of Rule 12(5)(h)(xi)(iii) of Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession (APMMC) Rules, 1966.
7
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had applied under RTI to find out if any leases exist in the subject area, in response to that the authority gave a reply that the same was not available in the records. It is further argued that the petitioner sought information under RTI to find out if any lease was granted in favour of the 5th respondent. He was informed that the subject matter of mining lease was not covered by any earlier mining leases. Thus it is argued that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner on the pretext that the area covered under the application is overlapping with that of the area applied by the 5th respondent, is unsustainable.
11. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.5, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, contends that, without challenging the proceedings that were issued in favour of the unofficial respondent no 5, the relief sought by the petitioner is not sustainable.
12. It is further contended by the learned counsel Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, that the petitioner had sought information from the Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India, to find out the existence of the lease granted in favour of the 5th respondent, instead of approaching the state department. It is contended that the Regional Controller of Mines has advised the petitioner to approach the State Mines and Geology Department to secure the copy of G.O.Ms.No.741 dated 05.08.1970, as the said G.O. was issued by them and 8 also the status of renewal of lease after 04.01.1991. However, he did not approach the state government department to obtain the information that it required.
13 It is contended that the Mining Plan was approved vide letter No.659(81)/90-Ba-NLR, dated 19.05.1992, a copy of the approved mining plan was given to the 5th respondent's father and the remaining copies were kept with the Regional Office, Nellore. It is further contended that if the petitioner has applied to State Mines and Geology Department, as has been advised by the Regional Controller of Mines, he would have got the correct information. The learned counsel or the 5th respondent has placed on record a copy of the lease deed executed on 05-01-1971 and the proceedings dated 05-01-1971 granting lease with effect from 05-01-1971 for a period of twenty years.
14. Perused the record. Considered the rival submissions.
15. The petitioner herein did not challenge any of the proceedings issued in favour of the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent condoned the delay of one day in filing the renewal application. Consequently, renewal of the lease was granted in favour of the 5th respondent. On account of the same, the lease application of the petitioner, which is after the 5th respondent's renewal application dated 05-01-2010, was rejected on the 9 ground that the extent applied by the petitioner overlaps with that of the 5th respondent. The petitioner's main argument is based on RTI information. The information sought under RTI by the petitioner from the Industries and Commerce Department was relegated to the office of the Assistant Director of Mines. The Assistant Director of Mines had furnished to the petitioner to the extent of the information that their office had.
16. The 5th respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the proceedings dated 05-08-1971 and a copy of the lease deed dated 05-01-1971 executed in favour of his father.
17. It is pertinent to observe that, as evident from the documents filed by the petitioner, namely the G.O.Ms.No.429 dated 28-12-1992, published in the Official Gazette, shows the name of the 5th respondent's father as the existing lease holder in respect of the subject, and which would be available for the grant of mining lease with effect from 26-03-1993. In the light of the said G.O. and the consequential unchallenged proceedings of extension of lease and statutory permissions that were granted in favour of the 5th respondent, the emphasis of the petitioner on the information obtained by it in the form of question and answers under RTI would not go either to disprove the proceedings that have been issued in favour of the 5th respondent herein or dilute the same. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10
18. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:02.12.2025 MVK 11 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:1628 of 2021 Date:02.12.2025 MVK