AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Dharma Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and grant mining lease for the areas applied for by the petitioners on 17.1.1991 and 27.11.1991 for the mineral ''slate'' in Ananthavaram, Mallampeta and Manginapudi villages of Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District in preference to any application.
The petitioners herein are doing business in mining of the mineral called "slate" which is a major mineral specified in Schedule-II to Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short the Rules''). On coming to know that this mineral is available in Ananthavaram, Manginipudi and Mallampeta villages of Prakasam District, both the petitioners applied to the State Government for grant of mining leases according to the Rules. The petitioners are also doing business in cutting and polishing of slates as an industry at Markapur.
Originally, the 1st petitioner applied for grant of lease in the year 1990 for an extent of Ac.195.00 in Mallampeta and Manginipudi villages in S.Nos.126, 265 and 276 for mining of major mineral known as ''slate'' for industrial purpose. The Assistant Director and Deputy Director of Mines and Geology recommended for grant of lease to the 1st petitioner. However, as the revenue clearance could be obtained only to an extent of Ac.54.32 cents, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 5.1.1990 granting mining lease to the 1st petitioner to Ac.54.32 cents. After obtaining revenue clearance for further extent of Ac.35.00, the 1st petitioner submitted application for grant of Mining Lease for mining ''slate; on 17.1.1991 for an extent of Ac.10.00 in S.No.126 in Manginipudi village and Ac.25.00 in S.No.276, 491 and 492 of Mallampeta village. It is also stated that this area is adjacent to the area where the 1st petitioner was already carrying on the mining operations pursuant to the lease granted on 5.1.1990.
The 2nd petitioner, through applications dated 27.11.1991 applied for granting of mining lease for the mineral ''slate'' in an extent of Ac.60 in S.Nos.26 and 27 of Ananthavaram village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District and an extent of Ac.24.96 cents in S.Nos.486, 489 and 491 of Mallampeta village of Prakasam District. The authorities concerned recommended the case of the 2nd petitioner for granting of mining lease. However, the Government did not grant the prospective licence in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioners that they were intimated by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology that their applications will not be considered and if any quarry lease applications are submitted for the same area, they will be considered. It appears that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Guntur had stated so in his Memo No.5319/M2/92 dated 28.10.1992 when the 3rd respondent had sought a clarification from him as to whether the applications for mining lease are to be entertained or not.
It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has no authority to direct the Assistant Director not to consider the applications for grant of mining lease so also the Assistant Director to reject the applications basing on the circular of the Deputy Director. It is submitted that it is for the Government to grant the mining lease for the mineral applied for by the petitioners; that no restrictions are contemplated for grant of mining lease excepting those mentioned under Sections 5 and 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act of 1957. Hence this writ petition.
In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the 1st petitioner was granted the Mining lease in the year 1990 on an application made in the year 1986 when there was no market for design/decorative stone. It is stated that the Assistant Director has also received applications from others for quarry leases in respect of the same lands applied for by the petitioners and therefore he sought for a clarification from the Deputy Director as to whether mining lease has to be granted or quarry leases have to be granted. Vide Memo dated 28.10.1992, the Deputy Director clarified that if the area applied for Mining lease contains slate/shale useful as decorative stone for building, it has to be treated as minor mineral only and accordingly, the quarry lease applications over the same area have to be considered for grant and not the mining leases. On the basis of the said clarification, the applications of the petitioners were not processed.
Challenging the above said rejection by the authorities, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ''the Rules'') deals with the question to be considered in this writ petition viz., refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 empowers the State Government to refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant. Sub-rule (2) contemplates that an application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease made under Rule 22 or Rule 24A, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses (d)(e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause (i) of sub-rule (3) of rule 22. According to Sub-rule (3), where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the document, without delay and in any case not later than sixty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant.
A reading of Rule 26 of the Rules makes it clear that the State Government after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant can refuse to grant and renewal of the mining lease by duly recording the reasons in writing and communicating the same to the applicant and it is not for the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology to either recommend the applications of the petitioners to the Government or refuse their applications. His duty u/s 26 of the Rules is only to process the applications submitted by the petitioners to the State Government for its consideration and it is for the State Government either to grant or refuse to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioners to the extent they have opted for or for a portion of the extent opted for. Even the State Government must give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before refusing their applications.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the petitioners applied for grant of mining lease to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, at the threshold itself, their applications were rejected. Therefore, the action of the Assistant Director in not processing the applications of the petitioners to the State Government for its consideration is illegal and unwarranted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the notification issued by the Central Government u/s 3(e) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, if the slate is used for industrial purpose, it should be treated as a major mineral and if the same is used for building purposes, it should be treated as a miner mineral and royalty has to be paid on the said mineral and as the 1st petitioner who is already having mining lease in the are has been supplying the mineral slate to other places for building material and by doing so the revenue of the State is being lost, the Asst. Director sought for a clarification from the higher authorities and there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Assistant Director. In order to avoid payment of royalty only the petitioners have applied for mining leases and if they want to apply for quarry lease they can also apply for the same and get it.
In the instant case, when the petitioners made applications for grant of mining lease for mineral ''slate'' as a major mineral, at the threshold itself, the Assistant Director without processing the applications to the State Government sought for a clarification from the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Gudur either to process or reject the applications of the petitioners. Therefore, the alleged action of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology in not processing the applications of the petitioners to the Government for its consideration is not proper and unwarranted. It is for the State Government either to grant to refuse to grant the mining lease sought for by the petitioners. The apprehension of the Assistant Director that the petitioners by applying for the mining lease for mineral ''slate'' are transporting the same to other places for using the same for building purposes and by doing so, they are cheating the State Government by not paying the royalty etc., is not valid. Necessary action can be taken against those licensees who contravene the conditions of grant of licenses/lease.
In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners dated 17.11.1991 and 27.11.1991 for grant of mining lease in the lands in question to the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders according to law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.