Jasti Satyanarayana Murty v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.Nos.29866 of 2016 and 12040 of 2017 COMMON ORDER:

Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and as the issues are also interrelated, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order. 2.

The then Government of Andhra Pradesh, by way of G.O.Ms.No.267, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 08.06.1984 granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner herein for Quartz for a period of 20 years over an extent of Ac.38-00 cents in Sy.No.15/P old (New Sy.No.140) of Saggonda village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter a lease deed was also entered into. On 04.12.1984, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology issued a Work Order, permitting the petitioner herein to carry on the mining operations. On 15.11.2003, petitioner herein submitted an application in Form-I for grant/renewal of mining lease and the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Eluru vide Lr.No.3062/M/2003, dated 30.10.2007, recommended renewal in favour of the petitioner herein. Vide notice dated 27.09.

2008, the second respondent/Director of Mines and Geology, instructed the petitioner herein to submit Mining Dues Clearance Certificate (MDCC) and Approved Mining Plan and responding to the same, petitioner herein submitted Mining Dues Clearance Certificate and Approved Mining Plan to the office of the Second respondent. The second respondent returned the mining plan with a direction to submit the same to the third respondent and accordingly the petitioner submitted the mining plan to the third respondent.

3.

Vide letter dated 26.10.2009, while referring to the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the Zonal Joint Director of Mines and Geology/third respondent herein asked the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to decide condonation of delay in filing the mining plan. Vide Memo No.44300/R2-1/07, dated 27.03.2010, the Director of Mines and Geology issued certain clarifications about the authorisation given under G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 28.06.2005. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 07.10.2015, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kakinada returned the Mining plan submitted by the petitioner herein and instructed to submit a revised mining plan after obtaining Memo for submission of approved mining plan by the Government. On 13.10.2015, the petitioner herein clarified with regard to the ground situation and also submitted a new mining plan for necessary action and eventually requested for approval of the mining plan. The said representation was also followed by a reminder dated 29.12.2015 submitted to the Office of the Director of Mines and Geology, Andhra Pradesh.

4.

Subsequently, vide proceedings No.44330/R2-1/2007, dated 22.08.2016, the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, rejected the request of the petitioner herein for condonation of delay in filing the mining plan. Assailing the legality of the same, petitioner herein filed W.P.No.29866 of 2016. In WPMP.No.36963 of 2016, this Court directed consideration of request of the petitioner for issuance of despatch permits. On 14.03.2017, the respondent herein rejected the request of the petitioner herein for grant of permission. The said action is under challenge in W.P.No.12040 of 2017. Counter affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions.

5.

Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents apart from perusing the material available before the Court. 6.

Submissions/contentions of Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner:

6.1.

The actions impugned in the writ petitions are highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (g) of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed there-under.

6.2.

The respondent authorities did not take into consideration the material available on record and grossly erred in rejecting the request of the petitioner herein for condonation of delay in submitting the mining plan and that the delay, if any, cannot be attributed to the petitioner herein.

6.3.

Due to the impugned action petitioner herein is deprived of his legitimate right to operate the mine in the light of the amended provisions of Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act,1957 and letter dated 02.06.2010 alleged to have been sent to the petitioner was never received by the petitioner. 7.

Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader: 7.1.

There is no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the impugned action is not amenable for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7.2 As there is failure on the part of the petitioner herein in responding to the notice dated 02.06.2010 of the third respondent, the Director of Mines and Geology is perfectly justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner.

8. In the above backdrop, now the issues that arise for consideration of this Court in the present writ petitions are:

1. Whether the Director of Mines and Geology is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of approval of mining plan?

2. Whether the petitioner herein is entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constriction of India? 9.

Obviously in terms of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the Director of Mines and Geology vide notice dated 27.09.2008 directed the petitioner herein to seek approval of mining plan. In this context, the Rule which is germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in the present writ petition is Rule 11 of the said Rules, which reads as under:

"11. Mining plan to be submitted by the existing lessee.-

(1) Where mining operations have been undertaken before the commencement of these rules without an approved mining plan, the holder of such mining lease, shall submit a mining plan within a period of one year from the date of commencement of these rules, 1[to the Regional Controller or the authorised officer or the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government as the case may be, for approval].

(2) If a holder of a mining lease has not been able to submit the mining plan within the specified time for reasons beyond his control, he may apply for extension of time giving reasons to the following authorities:- (a) to the Regional Controller for extension of time up to six months;

(b) to the Controller of Mines for extension of time exceeding six months but not exceeding one year;

(c) to the Chief Controller of Mines for extension of time beyond one year; (d) to the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government in respect of mining plan approved by the State Government.] 1[(3) The Regional Controller, Controller of Mines, the Chief Controller of Mines or the authorised officer or the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, as the case may be, on receiving an application made under sub-rule

(2) may, on being satisfied, extend the period for submission of

the mining plan for the period mentioned in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the said sub-rule.]

(4) The Regional Controller 2[or the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, as the case may be,] may approve the plan as submitted by the lessee under sub-rule (1) or may require modifications to be carried out in the plan and the lessee shall carry out such modifications and resubmit the modified plan for 3[***] approval. 1[(5) The Regional Controller or the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, as the case may be, shall, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the mining plan or the modified mining plan, convey, approval for disapproval to the applicant and in case of disapproval shall also convey the reasons for disapproving the said mining plan or the modified mining plan.]

(6) If no decision is conveyed within the period stipulated under sub-rule (5), the mining plan or the modified mining plan, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been provisionally approved and such approval shall be subject to the final decision whenever communicated.

(7) The mining plan submitted under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by a recognised person."

10.

It is very much evident from a reading of the said Rule that the lessee who could not submit the application within the time stipulated is entitled for extension of time. According to the Rule 11 (2) (d) of the Rules such application needs to be made to the officer authorised by the State Government. The information available before this Court discloses that earlier when the third respondent expressed doubt about his competence to grant approval, the Director of Mines and Geology vide Memo dated 27.03.2010 issued a clarification that vide G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 28.06.2015 the State Government authorised the third respondent to grant approval for mining plan. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.10.2015 when the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology requested to furnish revised mining plan, the petitioner herein responding to the same, clarified the situation vide letter dated 13.10.2015 and also filed a revised mining plan

and the submission of the remainder by the petitioner on 29.05.2015 is also not in dispute. By way of proceedings dated 22.06.2016, the Director of Mines and Geology rejected the request of the petitioner for approval of mining plan on the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the notice of the third respondent dated 02.06.2010 and that there is a delay of 5 years from the said letter dated 02.06.2010. In fact, in the affidavit field in W.P.No.12040 of 2017, it is categorically stated by the petitioner herein that he had no knowledge of the said letter dated 02.06.2010 and the same is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the therefore the same is required to be taken as correct. In fact, subsequent correspondence including the letter of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology dated 07.10.

2015 and the response of the petitioner dated 13.10.2011 and his remainder dated 29.12.2015 was neither referred to nor taken note of by the Director of Mines and Geology in the impugned order dated 22.08.2016. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner herein. A copy of the G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 28.06.1995 is also placed on record, which clearly shows that a number of officers including the Director of Mines and Geology are authorised to approve the mining plan.

11.

There is also no dispute with regard to the factum of submission of renewal application by the petitioner and pendency of the same before the authorities by the time Section 8-A (6) came into force. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to Section 8-A (6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which reads as under: "8A. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and atomic minerals.―(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to minerals other than those specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date

of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), where mineral is used for other than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with." 12.

It is very much apparent from a reading of the above provision of law that pending request of renewals are deemed to have been granted. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the respondent authorities in not issuing the despatch permits also. 13.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.44300/8R2-1/2007, dated 22.08.2016 and consequently it is declared that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for condonation of delay for grant of approval for mining plan is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (g) of the Constitution of India and the respondents are directed to consider the grant of approval for the mining plan, strictly in accordance with law, without reference to the delay as alleged, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also further declared that the respondents herein shall not reject the application of the petitioner for grant of approval for the mining plan on the ground of delay. Pending consideration of the same, petitioner herein is entitled for despatch permits. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 23.10.2017 grk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.Nos.29866 of 2016 and 12040 of 2017 Dated: 23.10.2017 grk