Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs ) Assailing The Order on 27 September, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.A. NO. 285 OF 2019
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) Assailing the Order, dated 16.08.2019, passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No.658 of 2010, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice in the impugned Writ Petition rejected the interim relief claimed by the petitioner.
2) The facts in issue are as under:
(i) The Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned letter F.No.4/17/2011-M-IV dated 20.08.2018, issued by the 2nd Respondent, that is, the Union Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India and consequential Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010-2, dated 02.11.2018, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary and violative of MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder.
(ii) The facts as averred in the Writ Petition show that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, incorporated on 31.07.1995 and setup an integrated beach sand mining and Garnet production facility in Tuticorin with total investment of Rs.,30,00,00,000/-
[Rupees Thirty Crores Only].
(iii) The Petitioner Company applied for mining lease for Beach Sand Minerals in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st Respondent, 2 in the writ petition, submitted its recommendation for grant of mining lease to the petitioner for mining of Garnet, vide letter dated 06.09.2000, for prior approval of 2nd Respondent in writ petition. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent accorded approval under Section 5(1) of MMDR Act (Act 67 of 1957) and Rules 1960, in after consultation with Department of Atomic Energy, wherein the Department of Atomic Energy suggested certain stipulations to be imposed in the grant.
(iv) It is an admitted fact that, mining of Garnet would involve in extraction of Ilmenite, Rutile, Leucoxene, Silimanite, Zircon and Monazite. It is said that, when Garnet is separated from the beach sand, the resultant sand always contains the associated minerals which is called "Tailings". Accordingly, the Central Government issued prior approval imposing a condition that, "if the lessee comes across deposits of any prescribed substances/atomic minerals, the same shall be disposed of any after obtaining a license from the Department of Atomic Energy as required under the Atomic Energy [Working of Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances] Rules, 1984". It further states that, "the tailings containing the prescribed substances shall be disposed of only to another entity which holds a valid license under the aforesaid Rules to process/separate the prescribed substances". Imposing the above conditions, mining license was granted to the petitioner, on 05.01.2002.
3
(v) After obtaining the necessary clearance from the concerned, the Petitioner Company has been continuing its mining operations without any complaint from any quarters.
(vi) While things stood thus, a Memo dated 02.11.2018 came to be issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is in consequence of the letter issued by the Government of India, the Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 20.08.2018, wherein, the Respondent No. 1 suspended the mining operations in the mining lease area for Garnet over an extent of 95.085 Hectares from the confluence of Nagavali river upto Survey No. 1042 of Srikurmam Village, Srikakulam District and the request of the petitioner to include other heavy minerals like Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Leucoxene and Sillimanite in the existing mining lease for Garnet came to be rejected. It is to be noted that, though, both the proceedings are dated 02.11.2018, the memo numbers are different. The suspension of mining for Garnet was vide Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010-1, while rejection of request for inclusion of other heavy minerals like Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Leucoxene and Sillimanite in the existing mining lease for Garnet is Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010-2.
(vii) The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the Order of the Government of India, dated 20.08.2018, issued by the 2nd Respondent, and consequential Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010- 2, which Memo was issued rejecting the request of the petitioner for inclusion of other beach sand minerals in the lease granted for 4 mining Garnet. It would be appropriate to extract the relief claimed in the writ petition which is as under:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned letter F.No.4/17/2011-M-IV dated 20.08.2018, issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010-2 dt. 02.11.2018 issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative the provisions of MMDR Act and Rules 2016 and violative of principles of natural justice and settled principles of law and consequentially direct the respondents to process the petitioner's application dated 22.03.2007 for grant of mining lease for the Associated Minerals, in accordance with the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.01.2009, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity".
(viii) From the above, it is very clear that what is sought to be challenged here is the rejection made by the authorities in not including other beach minerals in the lease granted for mining Garnet and not the memo cancelling the lease for excavation of Garnet.
3) A reading of the proceedings, dated 20.08.2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines addressed to the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department show that, "under Rule 12(2) - the lessee shall report to the State Government, the discovery in the leased area of any mineral not specified in the lease within a period of sixty days from the date of such discovery. As these minerals were occurring in association, since inception of the mining lease, the lessee was aware of the occurrence of associated mineral. However, the lessee failed to report the same and now after the lapse of almost 10 years, the request for inclusion of associated minerals has been made, which is in gross violation of the Rules. Hence, the State Government is advised to suspend. Subsequently, the State Government passed an Order, vide Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010- 5 2, dated 02.11.2018 cancelling the lease granted for excavation of Garnet.
4) Sri. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, way back in January 2004 itself, the petitioner company addressed a letter to Department of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, informing them that raw beach sands contain an average 18% Garnet; 8% Ilmenite > 0.5% each of Zircon & Rutile and 9% Sillimanite. Referring to Rule 66A(4) read with Rule 27(1)(b) of MCR, 1960, it is urged that, there may not be any need for filing a separate ML application for the above associated prescribed minerals nor any need for inclusion of the same in the existing mining leases. It is further stated that, the petitioner would secure similar handling licenses for the disposal of Ilmenite rich tailings to licensed entities after the commencement of operations of the Wet Gravity Plant and the garnet dry mill near Srikakulam.
5) In the month of August 2004, the Principal Secretary to Government addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Coal & Mines, requesting them to obtain and convey the prior approval of Government of India under Section 5(1)(b) of MM (D&R) Act, 1957 and Rule 27(b) of M.C. Rules, 1960 for inclusion of heavy minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon etc. in the existing lease held by the petitioner, in addition to Garnet.
6) The Counsel also refers to the letter, dated 10.08.2004, written by the Principal Secretary to Government & CIP to the Secretary to Government of India, Atomic Minerals Division of India, New Delhi, requesting them to obtain and convey the prior approval of Atomic Minerals Division of India for inclusion of heavy minerals such as 6 Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon etc. in the existing lease held by the petitioner, in addition to Garnet.
7) The Counsel for the petitioner also refer to the official memo, dated 05.12.2011, issued by the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, stating that the Department has no objection for grant of mining lease for inclusion of other heavy minerals like Ilmenite, Zircon, Rutile, Leucoxene and Sillimanite in the existing mining lease for Garnet over an area of 95.085 hects from the confluence of Nagavali river upto Sy. No. 1042 of Srikumam Village, Srikakulam District in favor of the petitioner, subject to the applicant obtaining all necessary clearances from the Revenue Department, Ministry of Environment and Forests etc.
8) The Counsel also relied upon certain permits granted by the State Authorities permitting the petitioner to dispatch Ilmenite. He placed on record one such permit which has been issued, on 13.04.2018, which stands expired on 12.05.2018.
9) Having regard to the above circumstances, the Counsel would submit that the allegation that the petitioner has been excavating the minerals unauthorizedly thereby causing loss to the exchequer is false. In other words, Sri. B. Chandrasen Reddy, Advocate, would contend that the information about the existence of minerals like Ilmenite, Rutile, Leucoxene, Silimanite, Zircon and Monazite in the beach sand was informed to the authorities. The allegation that no information about the same was given within period of 60 days is not correct. He further contends that, having regard to the fact that the permits have been granted for dispatch of minerals referred to 7 above, cancelling of permission for excavation Garnet for which the petitioner was granted lease, in the year 2002, would be improper and incorrect.
10) On the other hand, Sri. B. Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General, while referring to the prayer made in the writ petition and the letter, dated 20.08.2018, issued by the Government of India, would contend that, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. He took us through the letter, dated 01.03.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, wherein, the Government of India has decided to terminate all the existing mineral concessions of Beach Sand Minerals held by private person/ company in the country. Accordingly, the State Government was directed to take necessary action as per provisions of Section 4A(1) and 4A(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
11) In sofar as beach sand is concerned, the Government Pleader would contend that, permitting the petitioner to operate over the same may not be proper. He relied upon an Order of the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 in W.P. No. 41257 of 2018, dated 07.11.2018, wherein, the proceedings in Memo No. 13302/M.III(2)/2010-1, dated 02.11.2018 and consequential proceedings, dated 05.11.2018, came to be challenged and appropriate Orders came to be passed.
12) Having regard to the above, the whole gamut of argument here is that, the petitioner be permitted to continue excavation of Garnet cannot be accepted, since the order cancelling the same is subject matter of challenge in another Writ Petition, that is, W.P. No. 8 41257/2018. What was challenged herein relates to non-inclusion of other minerals in the lease granted for Garnet. As seen from the material on record, the Government of India has taken policy decision in respect of sand mining and exclusion of the same from the domain of the private person/company vide proceedings, dated 01.03.2019. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
"10. Whereas in view of the facts and circumstances above, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Central Government, after consultation with the State Governments decides that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and minerals development and conservation of mineral resources to terminate all the existing mineral concessions of Beach Sand Minerals held by private person / company in the country. Hence, the State Governments are requested to take necessary action as per provisions of Section 4A(1) and 4A(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957."
13) Hence, we see no ground to interfere with the interim Order passed by the learned Single Judge.
14) For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
15) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 27.09.2019.
SM.